Discuss whether broad executive powers to exclude activities from labour statutes are consistent with the doctrine against excessive delegation.

Under the doctrine against excessive delegation, the legislature must lay down the policy and standards of a law itself. It cannot hand its essential legislative function to the executive [1]. Section 2(p) of the Industrial Relations Code (IRC), 2020 lets the Centre exclude "any other activity" from 'industry' by notification. The Supreme Court has now agreed to hear AITUC Tamil Nadu's challenge to this clause [2]. Such a power is valid only if it is guided.

Arguments that the power is consistent with the doctrine

• Delegation is necessary: courts accept delegation as an ancillary measure and step in only when no policy can be found in the law [1].
• The policy can be traced: the Code's long title states its purpose: consolidating the law on trade unions and industrial disputes [3]. Section 2(p) also defines 'industry' as systematic employer–worker activity, whether or not it makes a profit [3].
• Flexibility: labour markets change faster than Parliament can amend laws. Notification allows quick adjustment for new sectors.

Arguments that it is excessive delegation

• No limiting standard: "any other activity" lists no grounds. The executive can redraw who the statute covers, which is close to abdication [1][2].
• Committee advice ignored: the Standing Committee on Labour (2019-20) asked that the Code itself list the cases where exclusion is allowed. On retrenchment thresholds, it said changes should be made by legislative amendment, not executive notification [4].
• Vagueness adds to the problem: "sovereign functions" and "substantially" charitable are undefined, and "establishment" is not defined either [4][5]. Coverage then depends on executive choice.
• Rights at stake: ILO Convention 98 allows only named categories, such as the armed forces, police and State administrators, to be kept out of collective bargaining. The IRC instead excludes whole activities [6]. This weakens the protection of Art. 19(1)(c).

Way forward

• List the grounds for exclusion in the Code, as the committee recommended [4].
• Require reasoned notifications, laid before Parliament after tripartite consultation.
• Courts can read down "sovereign functions" to the ILO's narrow categories [6] instead of striking the clause down.

Delegating detail is legitimate, but an unguided power to decide who a labour law covers conflicts with the doctrine. Clear statutory guidelines would keep the flexibility the government wants while protecting the Directive Principles (Arts. 38, 43) and SDG 8 (decent work).