the same citizens particularly vulnerable groups such as children require protection from the exposure of such content. People cannot be left to do whatever they want in the name of freedom of expression. In my view, the Parliament empowered the 1st respondent to make such regulations in order to control cyber content. Aside that, cost cannot be a factor that may affect the legality of the regulation and the authorities have the discretion to require what documents to be supplied. On the last ground, despite my microscopic scrutiny of the Regulations vis a vis the parent Act, I have found no evidence supporting the allegations that the principles of natural justice were breached. Before I pen down, I have the following observation to make: To make judicial control more efficacious, it is necessary that the delegating legislation does not confer power in too broad and generalized terms and language, otherwise, the court may find it extremely difficult to hold a regulation as falling outside the scope of the power delegated. This is what is envisaged by the doctrine of excessive delegation. It cannot be contested that there are some permissible delegated legislation and impermissible delegated legislation. The former include commencement -the operation of the Act may depend on the decision of the Government, supplying details-ancillary function in aid to the exercise of the legislative function and power of making rules and regulations. The latter includes essential legislative function: these cannot be delegated. Legislative policy must be laid down by the 23