This article is written by VAIBHAV SINGH, Student of BALLB (3rd year) of ASIAN LAW COLLEGE during his internship at Ledroit India.
Abstract.
The Indian Constitution has been in place for more than a century and serves as the foundation for all laws. Numerous landmark cases have resulted in the birth of various doctrines that have proven to be crucial to the interpretation of laws. In order to facilitate clear and precise interpretation and judgment, the Doctrine of Pith and Substance places an emphasis on the essential facts of a subject. The Indian application of the doctrine of “pith and substance” is the primary focus of this article. The article discusses doctrine of pith and substance with various landmark judgements given by the various courts and the need of doctrine of pith and substance in the Indian federal system.
Index Terms- Pith and substance, form and substance, federal, trespass, , encroachment, Constitution, , legislation, infringe.
Origin
It is widely believed by many people that the origin of the doctrine of pith and substance lies in Canadian constitution. Just like India has state and union legislature, Canada is divided into two parts- Dominions and Provinces which is defined in the section 91 and 92 of the Constitution act of the 1867 respectively. In order to divide the powers between the dominions and the provinces, the framers of the constitution of the Canada inserted two separate lists to the constitution. The idea of pith and substance was first time used in Canada in 1880 in the case of Charles Cushing v Louis Dupuy . The doctrine spread to India later on and is backed by both the Seventh Schedule and Article 246 of the Indian Constitution. It has developed into a well-known Indian doctrine that served as the foundation for numerous landmark decisions delivered by the Supreme Court.
Meaning Of Doctrine Of Pith And Substance
The doctrine’s meaning can be understood as “Pith and Substance” indicating the true nature of law. The doctrine emphasizes that the actual subject matter, not its incidental effects on another fields, are to be challenged. The term “pith” refers to “something’s essence” or “true nature,” while the term “substance” refers to “the most significant or essential part of something.” As a result, it is possible to assert that the very concept of “pith and substance” has to do with determining the true nature of a statute.
The doctrine of pith and substance is a legal principle that states that the law should be interpreted in such a way as to give effect to the true intent of the law. Pith and substance used to identify under which authority a piece of legislation belongs to. The doctrine is applied when the legislation made by one level of government infringed or trespassed by other legislation.
In India, The doctrine says that the state legislature and the union legislature are supreme in their areas and they should not get into the areas belongs to other. If either the state legislature or the union legislature trespassed or infringed in others legislation, the courts will use the doctrine of pith of substance to determine the scope of one’s legislation. The law should be regarded as intra vires because it pertains to a subject within the authority of the legislature that passed it, despite the possibility that it will unintentionally trespassed or enroach into areas that are not within its jurisdiction.This concept of doctrine of pith and substance used by the privy council in the case of Profulla Kumar Mukherjee V. Bank Of Khulna[1].
Feature Of The Doctrine
• When the subject matter mentioned in the two list seems to be conflicting, the doctrine of pith and substance is applied
• The powers of legislature will be completely restricted if every regulation is declared invalid on the grounds that it is infringing upon other regulations.
• The doctrine separates the subject matter into its appropriate list by revealing its true nature and character.
Doctrine Of Pith And Substance In India
The Doctrine of Pith and Substance plays an integral role in the Indian legal system. It is a nuanced tool used to understand the true nature of a law, and is used to ensure that law making power is exercised within its proper boundaries. This doctrine has been espoused by the Indian judiciary for over a century and has been an underlying foundation for many judgments passed in India. It is an important concept for the interpretation of statutes and is especially useful when addressing the validity of laws that seek to infringed into another’s legislation.
In the case of India, the idea of the residuary power i.e. the idea of federal system with strong centre is taken from the Canadian constitution. Article 246 of the Indian constitution and the seventh schedule which supports the idea of the doctrine of pith and substance and also divides the legislative powers between the centre and the states. Seventh schedule is consist of these three list –
The Union list – The union list contains those subjects where the centre has the power to make laws.
The State list- The union list contains those subjects where the centre has the power to make laws.
The Concurrent list – The concurrent list contains those subjects where both centre as well as state have the powers to make laws.
The powers of state and the union are well established in the seventh schedule of the constitution, but sometimes the conflicts arise between the centre and the state as one is encroaching upon the power of the other. To deal which these types of conflicts the courts in India relied upon the doctrine of the pith and substance.
Landmark Indian Judgements
• In the case of State of Bombay Vs. F.N Balsara[2], petitioner challenged the validity of the Bombay prohibiton Act which prohibited the sale and possession of the liquid in the state. It was challenged on the grounds that it was questioned on the grounds that it unintentionally interfered with the import and export of alcoholic beverages across the borders, which was mainly a central subject. Despite the fact that such an act would have an impact on the import of alcohol, the court upheld its validity because it is believed that the act was in its pith and substance falls under the purview of State List.
• In the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. G Chawala[3], the government of Rajasthan came with a legislation restricting the use of sound amplifiers. The legislation was challenged on the ground that amplifiers came under entry 31 of list I i.e. post and telegraphs; telephones; wireless; broadcasting and other like forms of communication. The state of Rajasthan argued that according to entry 6 of list II (power of legislation to public health) the law falls under the legislative competence of the state legislature, which includes the power to regulate the use of amplifiers because they produce loud noise. The court upheld the validity of the legislation and said that even though the amplifier is a device for broadcasting and communication, the court decided that it did not fall under entry 31 of list I. Despite the fact that the legislation was based on state law, it was not declared invalid even though it incidentally encroached on the subject of broadcasting and communication.
Need For Doctrine Of Pith And Substance In India
• One of the most important reasons for the adoption of doctrine of pith and substance in India was largely driven by the need to adapt an otherwise rigid framework for power distribution within a federal system.
• Another important reason for the adaptation of doctrine of pith and substance is that if every law were declared invalid on the grounds that it encroached or trespassed on the subject of another legislature, then powers provided to the legislature would be extremely restrictive. Hence, this would not serve the purpose of the power being granted to the legislature.
Conclusion
This doctrine of pith and substance, which first appeared in the Canadian constitution, is a well-established legal principle that has been recognized by a number of Indian high courts and the Supreme Court. The doctrine of pith and substance comes into play whenever a law is observed to be encroaching or trespassing on a field whose legislation has been delegated to another. The core idea of the doctrine is that whenever a question arises whether a particular law relates to a particular subject, the court examines the substance of the matter while dealing with the issue.
Hence, the following can be inferred from the abovementioned point – “Whenever a question arises as to determination of whether a particular law relates to a particular subject (which might be mentioned either in one list or another) the courts mainly look at the substance of the matter (Doctrine of Pith and Substance). For instance, “the incidental encroachment by the law on the State list does not make it invalid” if the substance is on the union list.
[1] (1947) 49 BOMLR 568
[2] 1951 AIR 318, 1951 SCR 682
[3] 1959 AIR 544, 1959 SCR Supl. (1) 904
