D.N. Ghosh v. Additional Sessions Judge (AIR 1959 Cal 208)
Delegated legislation is valid when the Legislature sets the policy, standards, and penalty limits. Easy English classroom explainer.
Quick Summary
dn-ghosh-v-additional-sessions-judge-and-others-air-1959-cal-208The petitioners ran Diguli Colliery. After a new Provident Fund Scheme under the 1948 Act, they were prosecuted for breaches. They argued that giving Government power to fix punishments in the Scheme was an excessive, unconstitutional delegation. The Calcutta High Court disagreed. The parent Act fixed the policy and the limits. The Government only filled in details. The delegation stood, and the challenge failed.
Issues
- Is it unconstitutional for the Legislature to let the Executive frame scheme rules with penalties?
- Were the prosecutions invalid because the penalty power was an excessive delegation?
Rules
- Delegation is valid if the Legislature states the policy, sets standards, and caps penalties.
- The delegate may fill in details, procedures, and recovery methods within the limits of the parent Act.
Facts (Timeline)
Arguments
Appellants (Ghosh & Ors.)
- Penalty power belongs to the Legislature, not the Executive.
- Clause 70 creates crimes—this is excessive delegation.
- Convictions based on an invalid scheme cannot stand.
Respondents (State)
- The Act sets policy, scope, and penalty limits.
- The Scheme only details enforcement within those limits.
- No excessive delegation; prosecutions are valid.
Judgment
The High Court held that Section 9 of the Act is not ultra vires and Clause 70 of the Scheme is valid. The Legislature kept control by fixing the policy and capping penalties. The Government acted as a delegate only to work out details. Result: the challenge failed and the convictions were not disturbed.
Ratio Decidendi
Delegation is constitutional when the parent statute lays down policy, guidance, and limits. The delegate may prescribe details and penalties within those limits without crossing into law-making by itself.
Why It Matters
- Clarifies the boundary between legislation and administration.
- Supports practical schemes (like PF) with enforceable rules.
- Sets a workable test for penalty clauses in delegated legislation.
Key Takeaways
- Legislature must set policy and limits; delegate can fill details.
- Penalty clauses in schemes can be valid within statutory caps.
- Excessive delegation occurs only when policy and limits are absent.
Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook
Mnemonic: “P-L-C: Policy–Limits–Control.”
- Policy: Legislature states the “what & why.”
- Limits: Caps on penalties and scope.
- Control: Delegate fills details under guidance.
IRAC
| Issue | Rule | Application | Conclusion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the Scheme’s penalty power an excessive delegation? | Delegation valid if policy, standards, and limits are set by the Act. | The 1948 Act fixed policy and penalty caps; Clause 70 fills details. | No excessive delegation; provisions upheld; petition fails. |
Glossary
- Delegated legislation
- Rules made by the Executive under authority of a statute.
- Ultra vires
- Beyond legal power; invalid for want of authority.
- Penalty cap
- Maximum punishment set by the parent law for scheme breaches.
FAQs
Related Cases
Delegation & Policy Tests
Cases discussing how far the Executive may go when the statute sets policy.
Penalty Clauses in Schemes
Precedents on limits for punishments set by delegated instruments.
Share
Related Post
Tags
Archive
Popular & Recent Post
Comment
Nothing for now