What did the Calcutta High Court decide in D.N. Ghosh?

The Court upheld the validity of delegated rule-making and penalties under the Coal Mines Provident Fund Scheme because the Legislature had fixed policy, standards, and limits.

When is delegated legislation acceptable?

When the parent law sets the policy and prescribes clear limits within which the Executive can frame detailed rules and impose penalties.

Did the Court find Section 9 or Clause 70 unconstitutional?

No. Section 9 was not ultra vires and Clause 70 did not amount to an excessive or unconstitutional delegation of power.

Why were the petitioners prosecuted?

They were accused of violating the Act and Scheme obligations relating to the Coal Mines Provident Fund; convictions were affirmed on appeal before this writ challenge.

What test did the Court apply?

Whether the Legislature kept effective control by setting policy, providing guidance, and capping penalties—so the delegate only filled in the details.

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.

Calcutta High Court 1959 AIR 1959 Cal 208 Delegated Legislation 6–7 min

Author: Gulzar Hashmi India Published: 23 Oct 2025

Quick Summary

dn-ghosh-v-additional-sessions-judge-and-others-air-1959-cal-208

The 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.

Primary Keyword: delegated legislation Keywords: penalty limits, provident fund scheme, ultra vires, Section 9, Clause 70

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)

Timeline illustration for D.N. Ghosh v. Additional Sessions Judge

Agreement: Diguli Colliery owners tie up with A.K. Goswami to run the mine; profit-sharing set (66⅔% every six months; extra 10% if profits > ₹1000/month).

1948: Coal Mines Provident Fund & Bonus Schemes Act enacted; Central Government empowered to frame a Scheme.

Scheme: Govt frames contributions, rates, recovery; Clause 70 lists punishable breaches.

Prosecution: Complaint filed for violations under the Act and Scheme.

Magistrate: Conviction under CrPC; fine imposed.

Appeal: Additional Sessions Judge dismisses appeal.

High Court: Petitioners argue unconstitutional delegation; Court upholds Section 9 and Clause 70.

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.