Supreme Court of India· 12 August 2026

Where a statutory functionary exercises an administrative power such as making a reference, may it rely on materials vicariously obtained through its officials, and what part of that power can never be delegated absent express legal authorisation?

SUDHIR & ORS v. HEAD OF HUMAN RESOURCE, DAINIK BHASKAR GROUP (D.B. CORP. LTD.) & ORS

2026 INSC 834 · SLP (C) NO. 4964 OF 2023
Coram: Dipankar Datta; Sheel Nagu

🔖 Save this judgment 🔔 Follow s.17(2) Working Journalists and …📬 Get today's judgments

View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.

Answer

It may rely on materials vicariously obtained through its officials and discharge its duty if it sees that they obtain those materials properly, but unless authorised by law, what cannot be delegated is the ultimate responsibility for exercise of the power entrusted.

Headnote

Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 — s.17(1) — s.17(2) — Delegation of power to refer — Constitution of India, 1950 — Art.142 — Directions — Working Journalists Act, 1955 — s.17(2) — Delegation of power to refer — Express mention excludes the other — Held: Section 17(1) lets the State Government delegate to a specified authority its power to satisfy itself and issue a certificate; Section 17(2) carries no such power. Under the rule that express mention of one excludes the other, only the State Government may refer a dispute as to amount due to a Labour Court. (¶19, 22) Working Journalists Act, 1955 — s.17(2) — Notification of delegation — GoM fell in grave error — Held further: The GoM fell in grave error in delegating its Section 17(2) power by the 2016 notification, though the specified authorities did not per se act without jurisdiction when the references were made under it. Since the Working Journalists Act now stands repealed, the Court in exercise of Article 142 directed fresh satisfaction rather than put parties back to square one. (¶32, 36, 38) Constitution of India, 1950 — Art.142 — Directions on pending references — Recovery and limitation — Held further: The impugned High Court judgments do not terminate pending Labour Court proceedings; the GoM must revisit every reference within six months, and where fresh satisfaction is not recorded the employee may pursue other recovery remedies, limitation commencing from receipt of the GoM's order. Civil appeals disposed of. (¶37, 41, 44, 46)

In the Court's own words

Paragraph 26What follows from the aforesaid passage is that having regard to the great volume of work necessary to be carried out, it may not be possible for the State Government to do the great bulk of work itself; the State Government, in the ordinary course of its administrative functions, has to and can rely on materials vicariously obtained through its officials, and it would amount to sufficient compliance of law if the discharge of duty that the law requires is premised on a proper consideration of the materials so obtained. However, it is of utmost importance that unless authorised by law, what cannot be delegated is the ultimate responsibility for exercise of the power entrusted.

Acts & Sections

s.17(2) Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955s.17(1) Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955s.17(3) Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955Art.142 Constitution of IndiaRule 36 Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Rules, 1957s.10(1) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947s.94-A Employees State Insurance Act, 1948s.85-B(1) Employees State Insurance Act, 1948s.481(1)(a) Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949s.21 Major Port Trusts Act, 1963

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of SUDHIR & ORS v. HEAD OF HUMAN RESOURCE, DAINIK BHASKAR GROUP (D.B. CORP. LTD.) & ORS — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment

Under the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955, though Section 17(1) expressly lets the State Government delegate its function to a specified authority, can the State Government delegate its Section 17(2) power to refer a dispute as to amount due to a Labour Court to any other authority?Since the principles of ratification do not apply to the exercise of powers conferred under statutory provisions, could the Government of Maharashtra's Section 17(2) delegation under the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 — which fell in grave error — still be given effect for references already made before the Notification was declared bad?This Court in Samarjit Ghosh v. Bennett Coleman & Co. held that the sub-sections of Section 17 of the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 constitute a 'single scheme' — does that decide whether the State Government's Section 17(2) power to refer a dispute can be delegated?

Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Supreme Court of India. Corrections