Court caseAIR 1960 SC 554

Where a statute confers on the executive a power to add to the subjects covered by the Act without laying down any policy, standard or guidance, the delegation is excessive and void; the offending clause may be severed and the rest of the Act upheld. Advertisement of drugs for commercial purposes is not protected speech under Article 19(1)(a).

The Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act 1954 prohibited advertisements suggesting that a drug could cure certain diseases listed in s. 3 and in a Schedule, and by s. 3(d) extended the prohibition to "any other disease or condition which may be specified in rules made under this Act". Hamdard Dawakhana, a manufacturer of Unani medicines, challenged the Act as violating its freedom of speech and trade and attacked s. 3(d) as an unguided delegation of legislative power.

Kapur J, for the Court, upheld the Act in substance: its object was to protect the public from self-medication induced by misleading advertisements, and commercial advertisement of drugs does not fall within the freedom of speech. But s. 3(d) was struck down. The Act laid down no criteria, standards or principles to guide the Central Government in choosing which further diseases to bring within the ban; the power to add to the list was in truth a power to determine policy, and under In re Delhi Laws Act such a power cannot be delegated. The clause was severable, so the rest of the statute survived.