Doctrine of Pith and Substance IOS

8/18/2019 Doctrine of Pith and Substance IOS

1/23

“Doctrine of Pith and Substance”

Submitted to:

Mr. Bharat Kumar

Assistant Professor

Faculty of Law

Submitted by:

Permanika Chuckal

VIIth Semester

2!2"#

Damodaram Sanjivayya National Law University

A!N"#L$D%&$N'


2/23

I woul$ like to e%&ress my s&ecial a&&reciation an$ thanks to my a$'isor Mr.Bharat Kumar ( who

ha'e )een a tremen$ous mentor for me. I woul$ like to thank you for encoura*in* my research(

a$'ice for the research has )een &riceless.

I woul$ e%ten$ my thanks to the +ni'ersity Authorities( for &ro'i$in* me with is o&&ortunity to

su)mit my &ro,ect. I am in$e)te$ to all those who ha'e hel&e$ me in $e'elo&in* this &ro,ect for

their su**estion an$ *ui$ance.

Permanika Chuckal

2!2"#

2


3/23

'able of ontents

-esearch Metho$olo*y

List of Cases #

Cha&ter I/ Intro$uction 0

Cha&ter II/ 1ri*in "

Cha&ter III/ Sco&e

Cha&ter IV/ Pro'isions in In$ian Constitution 3

Cha&ter V/ 4u$icial inter&retation throu*h 'arious cases !2

Conclusion 2!

Bi)lio*ra&hy 22

(esearch &ethodolo)y

"bjectives of study: 5he aim of this &ro,ect is to &erform a com&rehensi'e stu$y an$ analysis of

the $octrine of Pith an$ Su)stance. 5he aim of this &ro,ect is to stu$y the $octrine its ori*in an$

3


4/23

sco&e in $etail alon* with rele'ant &ro'isions of the In$ian Constitution an$ also su)stantiate

with rele'ant case laws.

Si)nificance * +enefit of Study: 5he si*nificance an$ )enefit of stu$y of this research &a&er is

to sense the i$ea of how inter&retation of the 6octrine is )ein* $one an$ it7s a&&lica)ility in

'arious cases.

Sco,e of Study: 5he sco&e of this research &a&er e%ten$s to the am)it of stu$yin* of the conce&t

of inter&retation of statutes( laws( an$ 6octrine of Pith an$ Su)stance throu*h the hel& of 'arious

cases.

(esearch &ethodolo)y: 5he researcher while $oin* the research has followe$ the $octrinal

research metho$olo*y an$ uniform of citation has )een a$o&te$.

-y,othesis: 5he researcher is tryin* to fin$ as to how rules of inter&retation can )e use$ un$er

$ifferent &ers&ecti'e of cases.

4


5/23

List of cases:

Prafulla Kumar Mukherjee '. Bank of Commerce Ltd., Khulna, AI- !3" PC 0.

Subramaniam Chettiyar '. Muthuswami Goundan, AI- !3! FC ".

State of Bombay '. atan Medical and General Store( AI- !3#! SC 03.

State of Bombay '. !.".Balsara, AI- !3#! SC 8!.

State of #ajasthan '. G.Chawla, AI- !3#3 SC #.

Krishna '. State of Madras, AI- !3#" SC 23".

$kha Kolhe '. State of Maharastra, AI- !308 SC !#8!.

%shwari Khetan su&ar Mills 'P( Ltd, '. State of $P, AI-!3 SC !3##.

).C. * G.M.Co. Ltd '. $nion of %ndia, AI- !38 SC 38".

State of +est Ben&al '. Kesoram %ndustries Ltd, AI- 2# SC !00.

MS. -oechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and thers '. State of Bihar and ther ( AI-

!38 SC !!3.

/ameer 0hmed Latifur #ehman Sheikh '. State of Maharastra and thers(

92!: # SCC 20.

Bank of "ew South +ales '. Commonwealth, 9!3: "0 CL- !( !0.

-od&e '. 1he 2ueen 9!8:( 3 A.C. !!"9P.C.:.

5


6/23

ha,ter .: .ntroduction:

5his $octrine en'isa*es that the Le*islation as a whole )e e%amine$ to ascertain its ;true

nature an$ character7 of Le*islation. Pith an$ su)stances is a le*al $octrine in Cana$ian

Constitutional inter&retation use$ to $etermine un$er which hea$ of &ower a *i'en &iece of

Le*islation falls. 5he 6octrine of &ith an$ su)stance &reser'es an$ &rotects Constitutional &ro&erties of

Parliament an$ Le*islatures? 0%# 23 3ournal !".

2 6.6.Basu( Com4arati5e Constitution 0289


7/23

&ur&ose of enactin* )o$y an$ the le*al effect of the law. 5o assess the &ur&ose( the courts may

consi$er )oth intrinsic e'i$ence( such as the Le*islation7s &ream)le or &ur&oses clauses( an$

e%trinsic e'i$ence( such as minutes of Parliamentary $e)ates. In $oin* so( they must ne'ertheless

seek to ascertain the true &ur&ose of the Le*islation( as o&&ose$ to its mere State$ or a&&arent

&ur&ose. =ually the courts may take into account the effects of the Le*islation.

5his $octrine is to )e a&&lie$ not only in case of a&&arent conflict )etween the &owers of two

Le*islatures )ut in any case where the =uestion arises whether a Le*islation is co'ere$ )y a

&articular le*islati'e &ower in e%ercise of which it is &ur&orte$ to )e ma$e#. In all such cases the

name *i'en )y the Le*islature to the im&u*ne$ enactment is not conclusi'e on the =uestion of its

own com&etence to make it. It is the &ith an$ su)stance of the Le*islation which $eci$es the

matter 0 an$ the &ith an$ su)stance is to )e $etermine$ with reference to the &ro'isions of the

statute itself ".

ha,ter ..: "ri)in

5he &rinci&le of >&ith an$ su)stance? ha$ come to )e esta)lishe$ )y the Pri'y Council( when it

$etermine$ a&&eals from Cana$a or Australia in'ol'in* the =uestion of le*islati'e com&etence of

the fe$eration or the States in those countries. Cana$a is the first country in which $octrine of

&ith an$ su)stance *ot e'ol'e$. Su&remacy of Pri'y Council o'er Cana$ian Constitution is

mainly res&onsi)le to )rin* into &icture this $octrine. 5he 4u$icial Committee of the Pri'y

Council 94CPV: is a court run )y the Douse of Lor$s in Lon$on. It was the hi*hest court in

Cana$a from !0" to !33( an$ hear$ Cana$a7s im&ortant $i'ision of &owers cases from that era.

It coul$ o'errule the Su&reme Court of Cana$aE many im&ortant cases )y&asses the Su&reme

Court alto*ether an$ went $irectly to the 4CPV. 5he $ecision of 4CPV $e'elo&e$ the $octrine on

;&ith an$ su)stance7 in Do$*e '. 5he ueen where the court State$ that >su),ects which in one

as&ect an$ for one &ur&ose falls within s.32( may in another as&ect an$ for another &ur&ose fall

4 0ttorney6General for ntario '. #eci4rocal %nsurers( G!32H A.C. 82 9P.C.:.

5 6.6.Basu( Shorter Constitution of %ndia !"8" 9


8/23

within s.3!?9B@A Act:. In a&&lyin* the $octrine( it shoul$ )e in situations where the im&ortance

of one matter shoul$ not )e si*nificantly lar*er than the other. In effect( the $octrine remo'es the

nee$ for courts to s&lit hairs to $etermine which hea$ of &ower shoul$ )e assi*ne$ a &articular

law.

In In$ia( the $octrine of &ith an$ su)stance came to )e a$o&te$ in the &rein$e&en$ence

&erio$( un$er the o'ernment of In$ia Act( !38#. 5he fine e%am&le is the Pri'y Council $ecision

in Prafulla Kumar Mukher,ee '. Bank of Commerce3( hol$in* that a State law( $ealin* with

money len$in* 9 a State su),ect:( is not in'ali$( merely )ecause it inci$entally affects &romissory

notes 9now +nion List( entry 0:. 5he $octrine is sometimes e%&resse$ in terms of ascertainin*

the >nature an$ the true character of Le*islation?( an$ it is also em&hasiJe$( that the name *i'en

)y the Le*islature in short title( is immaterial. A*ain( for a&&lyin* the >&ith an$ su)stance?

$octrine( re*ar$ is to )e ha$

9i: to the enactment as a whole(

9ii: to its main o),ects(

9iii: the sco&e an$ effects of its &ro'isions!.

ha,ter ...: Sco,e

5he Pith an$ Su)stance $octrine as a&&lie$ in the ,uris&ru$ence of the 4u$icial Committee of the

Pri'y Council( effecti'ely the British Im&erial Court of A&&eal( has )een carrie$ to other

commonwealth fe$erations. 5he $octrine is wi$ely acce&te$ to$ay. 5hou*h it ori*inate$ from

Cana$ian laws( *ra$ually it has )een inclu$e$ in many other Constitutional systems. s&ecially

the sates ha'in* Fe$eral character foun$ it essential to a&&ly $octrine in workin* as the $octrine

&ro'i$es reme$y for $is&utes arisin* )etween +nion an$ State. 5herefore other than Cana$a it is

use$ in In$ia un$er the &resent Constitution. In Australian Di*h Court a&&lie$ this $octrine in

8 -od&e '. 1he 2ueen 9!8:( 3 A.C. !!"9P.C.:.

9 Prafulla Kumar Mukherjee '. Bank of Commerce Ltd., Khulna, AI- !3" PC 0.

10 su4ra note 8.

8


9/23

Kin* '. Ber*er !!( where Fe$eral %cise 5ariff Act( !30 ha$ im&ose$ an e%cise $uty on

manufacture of a*ricultural im&lements an$ in'ali$ate$ the law. It was also use$ in @orthern

Irelan$( Scotlan$ an$ some other countries.

ha,ter ./: Provisions in .ndian onstitution:

In$ia as a Fe$eral State like America( Australia an$ Cana$a the le*islati'e &owers of the Central

fe$eration an$ the State Pro'inces were *i'en in three Lists( firstly un$er the o'ernment of

In$ia Act( !38# an$ then un$er the !3# Constitution( where Cana$a ha$ two Lists an$ America

an$ Australia ha$ only one List!2. 5hou*h the States $i$ not ,oin the fe$eration( the Fe$eral

&ro'isions of the o'ernment of In$ia Act( !38#( were in Act( a&&lie$ as )etween the Central

o'ernment an$ the Pro'inces. 5he $i'ision of &owers )etween Centre an$ the State Pro'inces

in the o'ernment of In$ia Act( !38# an$ the $i'ision ma$e in the Constitution )etween the

+nion an$ the State &rocee$s lar*ely on the same lines!8. A threefol$ $i'ision was ma$e in the

Act of !38#/

9i: Fe$eral List for Fe$eral Le*islature(9ii: Pro'incial List for Pro'incial Le*islature an$

9iii: Concurrent List for )oth Fe$eral an$ Pro'incial Le*islature.

Fe$eral Le*islature ha$ howe'er( the &ower to le*islate with res&ect to matters enumerate$ in the

Pro'incial List if &roclamation of emer*ency was ma$e )y the o'ernor eneral !. 5he Fe$eral

11 Kin& '. Ber&er ( 9!3: 0 CL- !.

12 5ony Black shiel$ >


10/23

Le*islature coul$ also le*islate with res&ect to a Pro'incial su),ect if the Le*islature of two or

more Pro'inces $esire$ this in their common interest!#.

In case of re&u*nancy in the Concurrent fiel$( a Fe$eral law &re'aile$ o'er Pro'incial law to the

e%tent of the re&u*nancy )ut if the Pro'incial law recei'e$ the assent of the o'ernor eneral or

of his ma,esty( ha'in* )een reser'e$ for their consi$eration for this &ur&ose( the Pro'incial law

&re'aile$( notwithstan$in* such re&u*nancy!0. 5he allocation of resi$uary &ower of Le*islation

in the Act was uni=ue. It was not 'este$ in either of the Central or Pro'incial Le*islatures( )ut

the o'ernor eneral was em&owere$ to authoriJe either the Fe$eral or Pro'incial Le*islature to

enact a law with res&ect to any matter which was not enumerate$ in the le*islati'e Lists!".

Moreo'er )y section ! of the o'ernment of In$ia Act the three Lists are carefully arran*e$ in

a ri*i$ hierarchy of su&er an$ su)or$ination/ the &ower in the Fe$eral List are e%clusi'e

notwithstan$in* anythin* in the other two ListsE the Concurrent &owers can )e e%ercise$ at either

le'el su),ect to the Fe$eral List an$ notwithstan$in* anythin* in the State ListE an$ the State

&ower are *i'en only su),ect to the other two Lists !. +n$er the o'ernment of In$ia Act there

were se'eral attem&ts to ar*ue that this hierarchical arran*ement left no room for a test of >&ith

an$ su)stance?. 5he ri*i$ $efinition of e%clusi'e fiel$s an$ the a)solute su&remacy of the

Fe$eral List meant that the Pro'inces coul$ not tres&ass u&on the areas of e%clusi'e Fe$eral

&ower at all( not e'en )y laws which in >&ith an$ su)stance? were clearly within Pro'incial

&ower.

5he &ro'isions un$er the Constitution of In$ia( !3# relate$ to the $octrine are/ Scheme of

$istri)ution un$er the Constitution.

A: 5he Constitutional &ro'isions in In$ia on the su),ect of $istri)ution of

le*islati'e &owers )etween the +nion an$ the States are s&rea$ out se'eral articles. Dowe'er( the

15 %d s.!8.

16 %bid s.!".

17 %d s.!.

18 su4ra note !2.

10


11/23

most im&ortant of those i.e. the )asic one is that containe$ in articles 2#20.

Article 2# &ro'i$es( inter alia( that

9i: Parliament may make laws for the whole or any &art of the territory of In$ia an$

9ii: 5he Le*islature of a State may make laws for the whole or any &art of the State.

B: 5hus( article 2# sets out the limits of the le*islati'e &owers of the +nion an$ the

State from the *eo*ra&hical an*le from the &oint of 'iew su),ect matter of Le*islationE it is

article 20 which is im&ortant. Article 20 rea$s as un$er/

>209!: notwithstan$in* anythin* in clauses 92: an$ 98:( Parliament has e%clusi'e &ower to

make laws in res&ect to any of the matters enumerate$ in List I of the Se'enth Sche$ule

9+nion List:.

92: @otwithstan$in* anythin* in clause 98:( Parliament( an$ su),ect to clause 9!:( the

Le*islature of any State also( shall ha'e &ower to make laws with res&ect to any of the

matters enumerate$ in List III in the Se'enth Sche$ule 9Concurrent List:

98: Su),ect to clauses 9!: an$ 92:( the Le*islature of any State has e%clusi'e &ower to make

law for such State or any &art thereof with res&ect to any of the matters enumerate$ in List

II in the Se'enth Sche$ule 9State List:.

9: Parliament has &ower to make laws with res&ect to any matter for any &art of the

territory of In$ia not inclu$e$ in State( notwithstan$in* that such matters is a matter

enumerate$ in the State List?.

By this article 20 the Constitution authoriJes the Parliament an$ the State Le*islatures to

le*islate Concurrently with res&ect to the su),ects enumerate$ in the Concurrent List. Accor$in*

to the ,oint Parliamentary committee re&ort( there is a ,ustification for the insertion of Concurrent

List which in not &resent in any of the Fe$eral Constitution. Both in In$ia an$ elsewhere( thou*hthere are certain matters which cannot )e allocate$ e%clusi'ely either to the Central or to the

State Le*islature( an$ for which( thou*h it is often $esira)le that the State Le*islature shoul$

make &ro'isions( it is e=ually necessary that the Central Le*islature shoul$ also ha'e le*islati'e

,uris$iction( to ena)le it in some cases to secure uniformity in the main &rinci&les of law

11


12/23

throu*hout the country!3. Article 2092: *i'es &ower to two Le*islatures( conflict can arise

)etween laws &asses on the same su),ect )y the two Le*islatures.

Article 2# of the Constitution mainly $eals in sol'in* re&u*nancy )etween State an$ +nion

Concurrent List.

Article 2#9!: If any &ro'ision of law ma$e )y the Le*islature of a State is re&u*nant to

any &ro'ision of law ma$e )y Parliament which Parliament is com&etent to enact( or to

any &ro'ision of an e%istin* law with res&ect to one of the matters enumerate$ in the

Concurrent List( then( su),ect to the &ro'isions of clause92:( the law ma$e )y Parliament(

whether &asse$ )efore or after the law ma$e )y the Le*islature of such State( or as the

case may )e( the e%istin* law( shall &re'ail an$ the law ma$e )y the Le*islature of State

shall( to the e%tent of re&u*nancy( )e 'oi$.

92:


13/23

character of the law. A strictly 'er)al inter&retation woul$ result in a lar*e num)er of statutes

)ein* $eclare$ in'ali$ on the *roun$ of o'erla&&in*. If the Le*islature is to ha'e the full sco&e to

e%ercise the &ower *rante$ to it( it is necessary to assume that the Constitution $oes not &re'ent a

Le*islature from $ealin* with a matter which may inci$entally affect any matter in the other

List2!.

ha,ter /: 0udicial .nter,retation throu)h various cases:

1n a$,u$*in* whether any &articular enactment is within the &ur'iew of one Le*islature or the

other( it is the &ith an$ su)stance of the Le*islation in =uestion that has to )e looke$ into. 5his

rule says that the Le*islation as a whole to )e e%amine$ to ascertain its ;true nature an$

character7. After ha'in* ascertaine$ the true character of the law( the court must &oint out in

which of the three Lists an Act of nature truly falls. In other wor$s( when a law is im&u*ne$ as

ultra 5ires( what has to )e ascertaine$ is the true nature an$ character of the Le*islation. If on

such e%amination it is foun$ that the Le*islation is in su)stance one on a matter assi*ne$ to the

Le*islature( then it must )e hel$ to )e 'ali$ in its entirety22.

5he a&&lication of the $octrine is well illustrate$ in Prafulla kumar '. Bank of Commerce28( 9a

case inter&retin* section ! of the o'ernment of In$ia Act( !38#( the &ro'isions of which were

su)stantially similar to the &resent article 20:. In that case the constitutional 'ali$ity of the

Ben*al Money Len$ers Act( !3( which ha$ &ro'i$e$ for limitin* the amount an$ the rate of

interest reco'era)le )y a len$er on any loan( was challen*e$ on the *roun$ that it was ultra 5ires

the Ben*al Le*islature. 5he Di*h Court of Calcutta hel$ that the Act was intra 5ires the

Pro'incial Le*islature( )ut on a&&eal to the Fe$eral court the $ecision of the Di*h Court was

re'erse$ an$ the Act was hel$ to )e ultra 5ires the law makin* &owers of the Ben*al Le*islature.

1n a&&eal to the Pri'y Council( it was conten$e$ on )ehalf of the Ben*al Le*islature that the Act

was 'ali$ as it $ealt with ;money len$in*7 an$ ;money len$ers7 in the Pro'ince a matter within

21 [email protected] an$ M.P.Sin*h( Constitution of %ndia " 9astern Book Com&any( Lucknow( !!th e$n.(

2:.

22 su4ra note #.

23 su4ra note 3.

13


14/23

the e%clusi'e com&etence of the Pro'incial Le*islature un$er List II( ntry 2". 1n )ehalf of the

res&on$ent cre$itor( it was conten$e$ that the Act was wholly ultra 5ires the Pro'incial

Le*islature( or at least that much of the Act as affecte$ the ri*ht of &romissory notehol$ers to

reco'er the full amount $ue on their &romissory notes. 5he res&on$ent relie$ u&on entry 2 of

List I( which assi*ne$ to the Fe$eral Le*islature e%clusi'e authority to make laws with res&ect to

>che=ues( )ills of e%chan*e( &romissory notes( an$ other like instruments?.

5he Pri'y Council hel$ that the Act was not 'oi$ in whole or as &art as )ein* ultra 5ires the

Pro'incial Le*islature. 5he &ith an$ su)stance of the Act )ein* money len$in*( it came within

List II( entry 2"( o'ernment of In$ia Act( !38#( an$ therefore was within the com&etence of the

Pro'incial Le*islature( an$ was not ren$ere$ in'ali$( )ecause it inci$entally affecte$ matters

reser'e$ for Fe$eral Le*islature( namely( >&romissory notes? in sche$ule VII( List I( entry 2.

5he followin* lea$in* &rinci&les are $e$uci)le from the Pri'y Council $ecision/

a:It is not &ossi)le to make a clearcut $istinction )etween the &owers of the +nion an$ the State

Le*islatures. 5hey are )oun$ to o'erla&( an$ where they $o so( the =uestions to )e consi$ere$

are/ what is the &ith an$ su)stance of the im&u*ne$ enactment( an$ in what List are its true

nature an$ character to )e foun$

):5he e%tent of in'asion )y the Pro'inces into the su),ects in the Fe$eral List in an im&ortant

matter( not )ecause the 'ali$ity of a Pro'incial Act can )e $etermine$ )y $iscriminatin* )etween

$e*rees of in'asion( )ut for $eterminin* the &ith an$ su)stance of the im&u*ne$ Act.

c:


15/23

them may a&&ear to ha'e le*islate$ in a for)i$$en s&here. Dence the rule has )een e'ol'e$N

where)y the im&u*ne$ statutes is e%amine$ to ascertain its ;&ith an$ su)stance7 of its ;true nature

an$ character7 for the &ur&ose of $eterminin* whether I is Le*islation with res&ect to matter in

the lost or that?. In State of Bom)ay '. Vatan

Me$ical an$ eneral Store2#( the Su&reme Court hel$ that >once it is foun$ that in &ith an$

su)stance a law falls within the &ermitte$ fiel$( any acci$ental encroachment )y it on a for)i$$en

fiel$ $oes not affect the com&etence of the concerne$ Le*islature to enact the law. ffect is not

the same thin* an$ su),ect matter. If a State Act( otherwise 'ali$( has effect on a matter in List I

$o not cease to )e Le*islation with res&ect to an entry in List II or III?.

In State of Bom)ay '. [email protected](

constitutional 'ali$ity of the Bom)ay Prohi)ition Act( !33 was in issue. 5he =uestion was

whether that Act fell un$er entry 8! of List II of the o'ernment of In$ia Act( !38#( namely(

>into%icatin* li=uors( that is to say( the &ro$uction( manufacture( &ossession( trans&ort( &urchase(

an$ sales of into%icatin* li=uors?( or >im&ort an$ e%&ort of li=uors across customs frontier?(

which is a Central su),ect. It was ar*ue$ that the &rohi)ition on &urchase( use( trans&ort an$ sale

of li=uor woul$ affect the im&ort. 5he Su&reme Court re,ecte$ the ar*ument( hel$ the Act 'ali$

)ecause the &ith an$ su)stance of the Act fell un$er entry 8! of List II( an$ not un$er entry !3 of

List I( e'en thou*h the Act inci$entally encroache$ u&on the Central &ower of Le*islation. 5he

court has enunciate$ the rule of &ith an$ su)stance in this case as >It is well settle$ that the

'ali$ity of an Act is not affecte$ if it inci$entally trenche$ on matters outsi$e the authoriJe$ fiel$

an$( therefore( it is necessary to en=uire in each case what is the &ith an$ su)stance of the Act

im&u*ne$. If the Act when so 'iewe$( su)stantially falls within the &owers e%&ressly conferre$

u&on the Le*islature which enacte$ it the it cannot )e hel$ to )e in'ali$ merely )ecause it

inci$entally encroache$ on matters which ha'e )een assi*ne$ to another Le*islature?.

5he a)o'e seen are the cases which came u& )efore the courts in our country )efore the

commencement of the constitution of In$ia. After the constitution came into force many &rinci&les were e'ol'e$ from 'arious cases relatin* to the clash )etween Central an$ State

Le*islations on a same su),ect. 5he followin* cases are some im&ortant cases of them/

25 State of Bombay '. atan Medical and General Store( AI- !3#! SC 03.

26 State of Bombay '. !.".Balsara, AI- !3#! SC 8!.

15


16/23

In State of -a,asthan '. .Chawla2"( the State Le*islature ma$e a law restrictin* the use

of soun$ am&lifiers. 5he res&on$ent who ha$ 'iolate$ the &ro'isions of the im&u*ne$ Act was

&rosecute$. 5he ,u$icial commissioner hel$ the Act in'ali$ an$ =uashe$ the con'iction. 1n

a&&eal to the Su&reme Court( the State conten$e$ that the law was within the le*islati'e

com&etence of the State Le*islature since it fell un$er entry 0 of the List II( >Pu)lic health an$

sanitation?. 5he res&on$ent( on the other han$( conten$e$ that the im&u*ne$ law fell un$er entry

8! of the List I( >Posts an$ 5ele*ra&hs( 5ele&hones( 5he &ower to make laws ;with res&ect to7 a su),ectmatter is &ower to make laws which

in reality an$ su)stance are laws u&on the su),ectmatter. It is not enou*h that a law shoul$ refer

to the su),ectmatter or a&&ly to the su),ectmatter/ for e%am&le( income ta% laws a&&ly to

cler*ymen an$ hotelkee&ers as mem)ers of the &u)licE )ut no one woul$ $escri)e an income ta%

law as )ein*( for that reason( a law with res&ect to cler*ymen or hotelkee&ers( Buil$in*

re*ulations a&&ly to )uil$in* erecte$ for or )y )anksE )ut such re*ulations coul$ not &ro&erly )e

$escri)e$ as laws with res&ect to )anks or )ankin*.?

In Krishna '. State of Ma$ras23( a&&lyin* the rule of &ith an$ su)stance( the Su&reme

Court u&hel$ the Ma$ras Prohi)ition Act( e'en thou*h it lai$ $own &roce$ure an$ &rinci&les of

e'i$ence for trial of offences un$er the law in =uestion 'ery $ifferent from those containe$ in the

27 State of #ajasthan '. G.Chawla, AI- !3#3 SC #.

28 Bank of "ew South +ales '. Commonwealth, 9!3: "0 CL- !( !0.

29 Krishna '. State of Madras, AI- !3#" SC 23".

16


17/23

Criminal Proce$ure Co$e an$ the In$ian 'i$ence Act( )oth Central Acts in the Concurrent fiel$.

In this case( the court a&&ears to )e ha'e *one rather too far in u&hol$in* the State law.

In +kha Kolhe '. State of Maharastra8( 4ustice Shah with him B.P.Sinha( C.4.(

[email protected] &roce$ures? in the le*islati'e entry inclu$es

in'esti*ation of offences( an$ s. !23A an$ !23B must )e re*ar$ as enacte$ in e%ercise of the

&ower conferre$ )y entries 2 an$ !2 in the List III. 5he Co$e of Criminal Proce$ure was a law in

force imme$iately )efore the commencement of the constitution( an$ )y 'irtue of Art.2#92:

Le*islation )y a State Le*islature with res&ect to any of the matters enumerate$ in the List III

re&u*nant to an earlier law ma$e )y Parliament or an e%istin* law with res&ect to that matter if it

has )een reser'e$ for the consi$eration of Presi$ent an$ has recei'e$ hisher assent( &re'ails in

the State.

5he only $ifference in the situations in the two cases a&&ears to )e that( while in +kha the

State law ha$ recei'e$ the Presi$ent assent( the law in'ol'e$ in Krishna ha$ not )een so

reser'e$( an$ this &erha&s e%&lains the $ichotomy in the ,u$icial attitu$es( for to take the same

'iew in Krishna( as was $one in +kha( woul$ ha'e )een to hol$ the law )a$ on the *roun$ of

re&u*nancy with the Central law8!.

In Ishwari Kehtan Su*ar Mills case82( it was hel$( when 'ali$ity of a Le*islation is

challen*e$ on the *roun$ of want of le*islati'e com&etence an$ it )ecomes necessary to

ascertain to which entry in the three Lists the Le*islation is refera)le to( the court has e'ol'e$ the

theory of &ith an$ su)stance. If in &it an$ su)stance Le*islation falls within one entry or the other

)ut some &ortion of the su),ect matter of the Le*islation inci$entally trenches u&on an$ mi*ht

enter a fiel$ un$er another List( the Act as a whole woul$ )e 'ali$ notwithstan$in* such

30 $kha Kolhe '. State of Maharastra, AI- !308 SC !#8!.

31 M.P.4ain( In$ian Constitutional Law ""39Le%is @e%is Butterworths


18/23

inci$ental trenchin*.

In 6.C. .M. Co. Lt$. '. +nion of In$ia88( it has )een hel$/ O


19/23

Pharmaceuticals Lt$. an$ 1rs. '. State of Bihar an$ 1rs 8#( relatin* to the le*islati'e &owers of the

Le*islations. 5hey are

9!: 5he 'arious entries in the three Lists are not 7&owers7 of Le*islation )ut 7fiel$s7 of

Le*islation. 5he Constitution effects a com&lete se&aration of the ta%in* &ower of the +nion an$

of the States un$er Article 20. 5here is no o'erla&&in* anywhere in the ta%in* &ower an$ the

Constitution *i'es in$e&en$ent sources of ta%ation to the +nion an$ the States.

92: In s&ite of the fiel$s of Le*islation ha'in* )een $emarcate$( the =uestion of

re&u*nancy )etween law ma$e )y Parliament an$ a law ma$e )y the State Le*islature may arise

only in cases when )oth the Le*islations occu&y the same fiel$ with res&ect to one of the matters

enumerate$ in the Concurrent List an$ a $irect conflict is seen. If there is a re&u*nancy $ue

to o'erla&&in* foun$ )etween List II on the one han$ an$ List I an$ List III on the other( the

Stats law will )e ultra 5ires an$ shall ha'e to *i'e way to the +nion law.

98: 5a%ation is consi$ere$ to )e a $istinct matter for &ur&oses of le*islati'e com&etence.

5here is a $istinction ma$e )etween *eneral su),ects of Le*islation an$ ta%ation. 5he *eneral

su),ects of Le*islation are $ealt with in one *rou& of entries an$ &ower of ta%ation in a se&arate

*rou&. 5he &ower to ta% cannot )e $e$uce$ from a *eneral le*islati'e entry as an ancillary

&ower.

9: 5he entries in the List )ein* merely to&ics or fiel$s of Le*islation( they must recei'e a

li)eral construction ins&ire$ )y a )roa$ an$ *enerous s&irit an$ not in a narrow &e$antic sense.

5he wor$s an$ e%&ressions em&loye$ in $raftin* the entries must )e *i'en the wi$est &ossi)le

inter&retation. 5his is )ecause( to =uote V. -amaswami( 4.( the allocation of the su),ects to the

Lists is not )y way of scientific or lo*ical $efinition )ut )y way of a mere sim&le% enumeration

of )roa$ cate*ories. A &ower to le*islate as to the &rinci&al matter s&ecifically mentione$ in the

entry shall also inclu$e within its e%&anse the Le*islations touchin* inci$ental an$ ancillary

matters.

9#:


20/23

)e u&hel$. 1ne of the &ro'en

metho$s of e%aminin* the le*islati'e com&etence of a Le*islature with re*ar$ to an enactment is

)y the a&&lication of the $octrine of &ith an$ su)stance. 5his $octrine is a&&lie$ when

the le*islati'e com&etence of the Le*islature with re*ar$ to a &articular enactment is challen*e$

with reference to the entries in 'arious Lists. If there is a challen*e to the le*islati'e com&etence(

the courts will try to ascertain the &ith an$ su)stance of such enactment on a scrutiny of the Act

in =uestion. In this &rocess( it is necessary for the courts to *o into an$ e%amine the true character

of the enactment( its o),ect( its sco&e an$ effect to fin$ out whether the enactment in =uestion is

*enuinely refera)le to a fiel$ of the Le*islation allotte$ to the res&ecti'e Le*islature un$er the

constitutional scheme. 5his $octrine is an esta)lishe$ &rinci&le of law in In$ia reco*niJe$ not

only )y this Court( )ut also )y 'arious Di*h Courts.


21/23

in List I( the Court has to look to the su)stance of the State Act an$ on such analysis an$

e%amination( if it is foun$ that in the &ith an$ su)stance( it falls un$er an entry in the State List

)ut there is only an inci$ental encroachment on any of the matters enumerate$ in the +nion List(

the State Act woul$ not )ecome in'ali$ merely )ecause there is inci$ental encroachment on any

of the matters in the +nion List.

An$ it is clear that anythin* that affects &u)lic &eace or tran=uility within the State or the

Pro'ince woul$ also affect &u)lic or$er an$ the State Le*islature is em&owere$ to enact laws

aime$ at containin* or &re'entin* Acts which ten$ to or actually affect &u)lic or$er. 'en if the

sai$ &art of the MC1CA inci$entally encroaches u&on a fiel$ un$er ntry ! of the +nion List(

the same cannot )e hel$ to )e ultra 5ires in 'iew of the $octrine of &ith an$ su)stance as in

essence the sai$ &art relates to maintenance of Pu)lic 1r$er which is essentially a State su),ect

an$ only inci$entally trenches u&on a matter fallin* un$er the +nion List?.

5he $octrine was there from &rein$e&en$ence era( un$er o'ernment of In$ia Act( !38#.

5hen after was inculcate$ un$er Constitution of In$ia. 'entually the $octrine has )een

&ronounce$ in many ,u$*ments as $iscusse$ earlier. 5he $octrine &ro'e$ 'ery si*nificant as it

sa'e$ inci$ental encroachment of two &ieces of Le*islature on each other. 5herefore we can infer

from the a)o'ementione$ cases( in the In$ian scenario( that the ,u$iciary ha$ a&&lie$ three )asic

&rinci&les un$er the $octrine of &ith an$ su)stance while $eci$in* the mattersE the enactment as a

whole( its main o),ect( an$ sco&e an$ effect of its &ro'isions has to )e re*ar$e$.

onclusion:

5his $octrine of &ith an$ su)stance has )een e'ol'e$ in all constitutions where the le*islati'e

su),ects are enumerate$ in more than one List fallin* within the com&etence of $ifferent

Le*islatures. 5his rule intro$uces a $e*ree of fle%i)ility into the otherwise ri*i$ scheme of

$istri)ution of &owers. It *i'es an a$$itional $imension to the &owers of Centre as well as the

States. 5he reason )ehin$ the rule is that if e'ery Le*islation were to )e $eclare$ in'ali$(

howsoe'er( sli*ht or inci$ental the encroachment of the other file$ )y it( then the &ower of each

21


22/23

Le*islature will $rastically circumscri)e$ to $eal effecti'ely with the su),ects entruste$ to it for

Le*islation.

5hus $octrine of &ith an$ su)stance is not only for *eneral un$erstan$in* ( in fact it *oes

on to hel& the ,u$iciary in fin$in* out what actually the law is tryin* to o),ect for. In other wor$s(

if a law &asse$ ostensi)ly to *i'e effect to the &olicy of the State is( in truth an$ su)stance( one

for accom&lishin* an unauthoriJe$ o),ect( the court woul$ )e entitle$ to tear the 'eil create$ )y

the $eclaration an$ $eci$e accor$in* to the real nature of the law. 5he $octrine *i'es =uite a *oo$

$eal of maneu'era)ility to the courts. It furnishes them tool to u&hol$ Le*islation( for it for them

to $eci$e its true nature an$ character an$( thus( they ha'e a num)er of choices o&en to them an$

most often the Courts )y &uttin* a fa'ora)le inter&retation on the Le*islation in =uestion use

their &ower to su&&ort the same.

+iblio)ra,hy

List of +oo1s referred :

o [email protected] an$ M.P.Sin*h( Constitution of %ndia " 9astern Book Com&any(

Lucknow( !!th e$n.( 2:.

o Ve&a P.Sarathi( %nter4retation of Statutes 03! 9aster Book Com&any( Lucknow

th e$n.( 28:.

22


23/23

o 6.6.Basu( Com4arati5e Constitutional law 0289

Doctrine of Pith and Substance IOS

Documents

Transcript of Doctrine of Pith and Substance IOS