Delegata potestas non potest delegari is a principle in constitutional and administrative law that means

in Latin that "no delegated powers can be further delegated." Alternatively, it can be stated delegatus non
potest delegare ("one to whom power is delegated cannot himself further delegate that power"). [1]

The principle is present in several jurisdictions such as that of the United States, the United Kingdom and India

The principle was first articulated in Canada in 1943, in an article in the Canadian Bar Review by John Willis.
While it is acknowledged as "the seminal articulation of the law governing the subdelegation of statutory and
discretionary powers"[1] and it is still often cited,[2] it has not achieved the rigid standing that was originally
intended. The maxim has had some success as an operating principle in the restriction of delegation of
legislative and judicial powers, but the demands of modern governmental regulatory practices have inhibited
its application in the delegation of administrative powers.[1] Exceptions are rare and dependent on the statute
conferring power.[3][4]

India[edit]

In India, the law was first stated in A K ROY v. State Of Punjab, (1986) 4 SCC 326, that sub delegation of
delegated power is ultra vires to the Enabling Act. [5][6]

United States[edit]

Each action taken by a business must come from someone who has authority to make a decision on behalf of
the business. Typically, this is the owner, a board of directors or someone with authority, such as a president or
chief executive officer. Ratification is the act of confirming or agreeing to a particular course of action. It can
occur in various situations and can be determined from the facts and circumstances surrounding the events.

Contracts

A written contract signed by individuals who have the authority to bind the corporation to the agreement is
one example of ratification. Contracts describe the specific obligations and rights of an arrangement and allow
a party to seek legal action if the other party breaches the agreement. Sometimes an agreement may change.
The parties may amend the agreement to reflect the change. In the amendment, the following language often
precedes the signature line: Except for the changes in this amendment, the agreement is ratified and affirmed
and remains in effect. The ratification language signifies further agreement to the changes and notes that,
aside from those changes, the original agreement is not affected.

Ratifying Conduct

Not every action is evidenced by a written contract. For example, assume John Doe is a stock boy for XYZ
Corporation. John hires his good friend to make deliveries for the XYZ Corporation. John does not have the
authority to enter into this type of agreement. However, if the president of XYZ Corporation starts paying Johns
friend, the president has ratified Johns conduct and bound the corporation to the agreement. If instead the
president refuses to pay Johns friend and refuses to allow Johns friend to make deliveries, Johns friend may
not have a cause of action against XYZ Corporation for breach because the conduct was not ratified and John
had no authority to make the decision.

Vicarious Liability

Vicarious liability is a situation in which ratification isnt explicitly needed to hold the business responsible for
some course of conduct. In general, businesses are responsible for the acts of their employees unless the
employee does something outside of the scope of her employment. For example, assume a business hires a
delivery driver and the delivery driver gets into an accident. The injured person in the accident could hold the
business liable for the drivers conduct because the business is responsible for the acts of its employees