Unit 1

“The essence of law lies in the spirit, not in its letter, for the letter is significant only as being
the external manifestation of the intention that underlies it.” – Salmond

The above quote indicates the significance of the intent of lawmakers, rather than their visible
expression in form of words written, of a law. To enact a law effectively so that it serves its
purpose it is important to interpret it in the spirit with which it was framed. The act of
determining its true sense is called interpretation of statute. And to facilitate this process of
interpretation various theories, presumptions, aids, rules and principles have been formulated
over the period.

What is Interpretation?

The term interpretation is derived from a Latin term “interpretari” which means to explain,
infer, expound or translate. The process of ascertaining the actual intended meaning of a
written document by giving its words their ordinary meaning is called interpretation. In other
words, interpretation is the process to ascertain the true meaning of the words written in a
legal document.

What is Statute?

In literal sense, “Statute” means a law that has been formally approved and written down. In
its legal sense, it means an act of a legislature that declares, prescribes, or commands
something. Statutes set forth general propositions of law that court applies to the specific
situations.

Thus following can be listed as Statute: Constitution, Central Acts, State Acts, Ordinance,
Bye Laws, Rules, Regulations, Notifications, Circulars, Instructions, Directions,
Clarifications.

What is meant by Interpretation of Statutes?

Out of the three organs of the State, viz Legislative, Executive and Judiciary, interpreting the
statutes is primarily concerned with Judiciary. Being the machinery that puts the laws laid
down by legislature into use, it becomes primary function of Judiciary to interpret the statutes
and ascertain the correct meaning of the provisions of the statutes in their true spirit as
intended by the framers.

Salmond defines the interpretation of statutes as “interpretation or construction is the process

by which the courts seek to ascertain the meaning of the legislation through the medium of
the authoritative form in which it is expressed.”

Scope and need for Interpretation

Statutes enacted are drafted by legal experts, thus leaving little room for interpretation of the
of the language used but the necessity of interpretation arises when the language is not clear
or ambiguous or when multiple views can be inferred or when the language of the provision
gives a different meaning altogether which defeats the object of the statute.

A Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court in R.S. Nayak v AR Antulay, AIR 1984 SC

684 held that:

“……If words of the Statute are clear and unambiguous, it is the plainest duty of the Court to
give effect to the natural meaning of the words used in the provision. The question of
construction arises only in the event of an ambiguity or the plain meaning of the words used
in the Statute would be self-defeating.”
Following the same principle Supreme Court in Grasim Industries Ltd. V Collector of
Customs, Bombay, (2002)4 SCC 297 observed that:

“where the words are clear and there is no obscurity, and there is no ambiguity and the
intention of the legislature is clearly conveyed, there is no scope for the Court to take upon
itself the task of amending or altering the statutory provisions.”

The goals and objectives which interpretation of statutes seeks to be achieved can be
summarized as follows;

 1. Understanding the intent of the legislators: The main goal of interpretation is to

comprehend what the lawmakers intended when they made and passed a law. This
involves analysing the language used in the statute taking into account its context and
examining the circumstances surrounding its creation.
 2. Achieving the purpose for which the statute was brought into force: Once we
have determined the intent the next objective is to ensure that the statutes purpose is
fulfilled. This means interpreting it in a way that aligns with the goals intended by
lawmaker.
 3. Protecting rights and freedoms: Statutory interpretation should also prioritize
safeguarding individual’s rights and liberties. It entails interpreting laws in a manner
that does not unreasonably infringe upon people’s rights and freedoms, but rather help
them
In addition, to these objectives there may be aims to certain cases. For example, a
court might interpret a statute in a way that minimizes its impact, on the economy or
promotes welfare.

The interpretation is required for two basic reasons viz. to ascertain:

1. Legislative Language: Since the Statutes are drafted by Legal experts using
Legislative and technical Language, it can be complicated and complex for layman to
understand it and hence interpretation is required to simplify and explain the
provisions to the layman.
2. Legislative Intent: The Legislative Intent comprises of two-fold aspects as to:
1. Concept of ‘meaning’, i.e., what the word means;
2. Concept of ‘object’ and ‘purpose’ or ‘spirit’ or the ‘reason’ pervading
throughout the Statute.

The interpretation of statutes is needed:

1. To infer clear and precise meanings where multiple meanings can be inferred from the
language used.
2. To fill the gaps in law: it is impossible for the lawmakers to draft the law anticipating
all the possible scenarios that could arise in future and this impossibility leads to use
of indeterminate language and Courts from time to time have to interpret such
 indeterminate language according to the present scenarios. For example: use of word
“reasonable” in the provisions, Courts interpret and define the word reasonable now
and then according to changing times.
3. To decide the most correct use of language: words may have multiple meanings and
each party in the Court will tend to infer the meaning which is advantageous to itself,
so courts interpret in the most correct manner and there by establishing its uniform
use too and ensuring uniform impart of justice.

IMPORTANT POINTS TO KEEP IN MIND WHILE INTERPRETATING:

 The Statute must be read as an entire context.

 The intention of the framers of the legislation should be kept in mind.
 Interpretation should be such as to make the Statute meaningful, effective and
workable.
 The process of construing should be literal as well as purposive i.e., one should shift
from literal meaning if it leads to absurdity.

Unit 2

Rules of Interpretation
Literal or Grammatical Rule
It is the first rule of interpretation. According to this rule, the words used in this text are to be
given or interpreted in their natural or ordinary meaning. After the interpretation, if the
meaning is completely clear and unambiguous then the effect shall be given to a provision of
a statute regardless of what may be the consequences.
The essence of the literal rule can be summarized as follows: “The focus should be on what
the law says rather than what the law means.

The basic rule is that whatever the intention legislature had while making any provision it has
been expressed through words and thus, are to be interpreted according to the rules of
grammar. It is the safest rule of interpretation of statutes because the intention of the
legislature is deduced from the words and the language used.
According to this rule, the only duty of the court is to give effect if the language of the statute
is plain and has no business to look into the consequences which might arise. The only
obligation of the court is to expound the law as it is and if any harsh consequences arise then
the remedy for it shall be sought and looked out by the legislature.
Case Laws
In the case of Tata Consultancy Services v. State of A.P. (2005) 1 SCC 308, it was held
that:
“A literal construction should not be denied simply because complying with it may result in a
penalty. The courts should not be overly eager to find ambiguities or obscurities in plain
words.”
State of Kerala v. Mathai Verghese and others, 1987 AIR 33 SCR(1) 317, in this case a
person was caught along with the counterfeit currency “dollars” and he was charged under
section 120B, 498A, 498C and 420 read with section 511 and 34 of Indian Penal Code for
possessing counterfeit currency. The accused contended before the court that a charge under
section 498A and 498B of Indian Penal Code can only be levied in the case of counterfeiting
of Indian currency notes and not in the case of counterfeiting of foreign currency notes. The
court held that the word currency notes or bank note cannot be prefixed. The person was held
liable to be charge-sheeted.

Meaning of Golden Rules of Statutory Interpretation

The golden rule of interpretation is an expansion or extension of the literal rule, allowing
judges to deviate from the strict literal meaning of words to prevent absurd outcomes.

According to the golden rule, when interpreting a statute, the Court must generally adhere to
the ordinary meaning of the words used.

The golden rule can be applied in both a narrow and wider sense.

In the narrow approach, the judge employs this rule when the word used in the statute is
ambiguous, meaning it has multiple possible meanings. It is then up to the judge to choose
the most appropriate meaning in the case context.

In the wider approach, the golden rule is often utilised when there is only one literal
meaning of a word, but using that meaning would lead to an absurd result. Therefore, the
Court may modify the interpretation of the word to avoid such absurdity.

Significance of the Golden Rules

The golden rule holds significant importance in the field of interpretation. It imposes a duty
upon the Court to give effect to the intended meaning of the law when following the literal
interpretation would lead to absurdity or defeat the purpose of the enactment. In such cases,
the Court may need to modify the grammatical and ordinary sense of the words used in the
law.

However, the Court must exercise caution and not deviate from the provision of a law that
has a reasonably plain and clear meaning on its face. This means that the Court can only
partially redefine or rewrite the law. The Court must strive to find the intended meaning
within the words used in the statute.

Unless the words of the law are absurd, ambiguous or lack a proper meaning, it is generally
preferable to interpret them based on their natural and ordinary meaning. This approach
ensures consistency and maintains the integrity of the legislative intent.

Application of the Golden Rule of Interpretation of Statutes in India

State of Punjab v. Qaiser Jehan Begum (1963)

In the case of State of Punjab v. Qaiser Jehan Begum (1963), the respondents owned land
that the appellant acquired without their knowledge or presence during the award process.
The Collector awarded compensation, but the respondents later contested the valuation of
their land. The senior subordinate judge rejected their application because it was beyond the
limitation period as per Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894. The issue was
whether the limitation period started from the day of the sale or from the day the respondents
became aware of the award.

The Supreme Court ruled that for the parties to apply for reference under Section 18, they
must first be aware of the award. Since the parties were not informed of the award through
notice, the limitation period would start from the date they became aware of the award rather
than the date of compensation. The Court applied the golden rule of interpretation to modify
the provision’s meaning and include the start of the limitation period from the date of
receiving notice of the award.

The Mischief Rule

Mischief rule is a rule of interpretation that looks at the intention of the legislators and the
problem that the statute was meant to remedy. It gives judges more discretion to refine and
develop statutes, It is also called the mischief rule because it focuses on curing the mischief.
Mischief Rule was originated in Heydon’s case in 1584. It is the rule of purposive
construction because the purpose of this statute is most important while applying this rule. It
is known as Heydon’s rule because it was given by Lord Poke in Heydon’s case in 1584. It is
called as mischief rule because the focus is on curing the mischief.
In the Heydon’s case, it was held that there are four things which have to be followed for true
and sure interpretation of all the statutes in general, which are as follows-
1. What was the common law before the making of an act.
2. What was the mischief for which the present statute was enacted.
3. What remedy did the Parliament sought or had resolved and appointed to cure the
disease of the commonwealth.
4. The true reason of the remedy.
The purpose of this rule is to suppress the mischief and advance the remedy.
Case laws
Smith v. Huges, 1960 WLR 830, in this case around the 1960s, the prostitutes were soliciting
in the streets of London and it was creating a huge problem in London. This was causing a
great problem in maintaining law and order. To prevent this problem, Street Offences Act,
1959 was enacted. After the enactment of this act, the prostitutes started soliciting from
windows and balconies.
Further, the prostitutes who were carrying on to solicit from the streets and balconies were
charged under section 1(1) of the said Act. But the prostitutes pleaded that they were not
solicited from the streets.
The court held that although they were not soliciting from the streets yet the mischief
rule must be applied to prevent the soliciting by prostitutes and shall look into this issue.
Thus, by applying this rule, the court held that the windows and balconies were taken to be an
extension of the word street and charge sheet was held to be correct.
Pyare Lal v. Ram Chandra, the accused in this case, was prosecuted for selling the sweeten
supari which was sweetened with the help of an artificial sweetener. He was prosecuted under
the Food Adulteration Act. It was contended by Pyare Lal that supari is not a food item. The
court held that the dictionary meaning is not always the correct meaning, thereby, the
mischief rule must be applicable, and the interpretation which advances the remedy shall be
taken into consideration. Therefore, the court held that the word ‘food’ is consumable by
mouth and orally. Thus, his prosecution was held to be valid.
Meaning of the Doctrine of Harmonious Construction
The Doctrine of Harmonious Construction is an essential rule for interpreting statutes. This
doctrine states that when there’s a conflict between two or more statutes or between different
parts or provisions of a statute, we should interpret them in a way that harmonises them. This
means that when there are inconsistencies, we should try to reconcile the conflicting parts so
that one part doesn’t negate the purpose of another.
The Doctrine of Harmonious Construction is rooted in a fundamental legal principle that
every statute is created with a specific purpose and intent. Therefore, it should be understood
as a whole. We usually assume that what Parliament gives with one hand, it doesn’t intend to
take away with the other. The goal is to give effect to all the provisions. To avoid conflicts,
the interpretation of the statute should be consistent with all its parts.
If it’s impossible to harmoniously interpret or reconcile the different parts or provisions, then
it’s the responsibility of the judiciary to make the final decision and give its judgment. Courts
aim to interpret the law in a way that resolves conflicts between the provisions, making the
statute consistent as a whole and ensuring it’s understood accordingly.
Origin of Doctrine of Harmonious Construction
The Doctrine of Harmonious Construction has its origins in court interpretations of various
cases. Its creation can be traced back to the first amendment to the Constitution of India,
particularly the landmark case of Sri Shankari Prasad Singh Deo vs. Union of India (AIR
1951 SC 458). This case revolved around a conflict between Part III (Fundamental Rights)
and Part IV (Directive Principles of State Policy) of the Indian Constitution.
In this case, the court applied the Harmonious Construction Rule to resolve the disagreement.
It concluded that Fundamental Rights, which are rights granted against the State, could be
limited under certain circumstances and modified by Parliament to align with constitutional
provisions. Both sets of rights were given importance and it was established that Fundamental
Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy are complementary aspects that must work
together for the greater good.
Historically, this theory of harmonious construction in interpretation of statutes evolved
through legal precedents, notably in the case of C. P and Berar General Clauses Act, 1914.
In this case, the court used the Rule of Interpretation to avoid any overlap or confusion
between entries 24 and 25 of the State List and to interpret them in a logical sequence by
determining the scope of the subjects in question.
principles that Govern the Doctrine of Harmonious Construction
In the landmark case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/S Hindustan Bulk Carriers
(2000), the Supreme Court established five fundamental principles governing the rule of
harmonious construction:
1. Courts should make every effort to avoid conflicts between seemingly conflicting
provisions and should attempt to interpret these provisions in a way that harmonises them.
2. A provision in one section of the law should not be used to nullify a provision found in
another section unless the court is unable to find a way to reconcile their differences despite
diligent effort.
3. In cases where it’s impossible to completely reconcile inconsistencies between provisions,
the courts must interpret them in a manner that gives effect to both provisions to the greatest
extent possible.
4. Courts must consider that an interpretation rendering one provision redundant or useless
goes against the essence of harmonious construction and should be avoided.
5. Harmonising two contradictory provisions means preserving and not destroying any
statutory provision or rendering it ineffective.
Sri Jagannath Temple Managing Committee v. Siddha Math and Others (2015)
In the case of Sri Jagannath Temple Managing Committee v. Siddha Math and Others (2015),
a conflict arose between the Sri Jagannath Temple Act, 1955 and the Orissa Estate Abolition
Act, 1951. The Supreme Court found that Section 2(oo) of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act
conflicted with Sections 5 and 30 of the Shri Jagannath Temple Act, making it impossible for
both provisions to coexist. The Court applied the rule of harmonious construction but noted
that when statutes are irreconcilable, one must take precedence.
The Court identified that it was only the first part of the proviso in Section 2(oo) of the OEA
Act that contradicted the Jagannath Temple Act. If this part were given effect, it would render
Sections 5 and 30 of the Jagannath Temple Act meaningless. The Court emphasised that in
cases involving the application of specific and general laws, the court must scrutinise the
nature of the case. When two laws are in absolute conflict, the limitations and exceptions
imposed by the Legislature must be examined.
The Supreme Court held that the special provisions of the Jagannath Temple Act should
prevail, applying the principle of “generalia specialibus non derogant.”

Unit 4
What is Beneficial Construction in Interpretation of Statutes?
Beneficial Construction in the Interpretation of Statutes is an approach where courts interpret
legislation broadly to fulfil its intended protective purpose. This principle is applied when a
statute aims to benefit a specific class or group, ensuring that ambiguities are resolved in
favour of the beneficiaries.
It involves giving the statute the widest meaning to protect the interests of those it aims to
help, often seen in social welfare, labour, and consumer protection laws. By adopting this
approach, courts ensure that the statute’s primary objective of providing benefits and
protections is achieved effectively.
The fundamental tenet of beneficial construction is to interpret statutes In a way that benefits
individuals, especially when there is ambiguity or when a narrow interpretation would
deprive individuals of the intended benefits. Courts, therefore, adopt a generous approach,
giving the statute the widest possible meaning to protect the interests of the parties it aims to
benefit.

Principles of Beneficial Construction of Statute

Purpose Over Precision: When the language of the statute is ambiguous, judges often
prioritise the law’s purpose over its literal text to ensure the outcome aligns with legislative
intent.
Rectifying Omissions: Sometimes, statutes may not explicitly cover every scenario.
Beneficial construction in interpretation of statutes allows judges to fill these gaps by
interpreting the law in a way that encompasses such unforeseen situations without altering its
essence.
Promoting Justice and Equity: This approach ensures that the interpretation of statutes
contributes to fairness and justice
Judicial Interpretations Supporting Beneficial Construction of Statute
Several landmark cases illustrate the application of beneficial construction.

Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. Ashok Vishnu Kate

In this case, the court emphasised that statutes related to the prevention of unfair labour
practices should be interpreted from the labourers’ perspective, as the legislation aims to
benefit them. This principle extends to other social welfare legislations, ensuring that the
interpretation aligns with the interests of the beneficiary class.

Noor Saba Khatoon v. Mohammad Quasim

The Supreme Court held that the rights of maintenance for children below two years old and
the mother under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, are independent of
each other. Subsequent legislation, such as the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on
Divorce) Act, 1986, could not affect these rights without a clear provision to that effect.
Kanailal v. Paramnidhi (AIR 1957 SC 907)
The Supreme Court recognised the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949, as a beneficial
construction, interpreting it in a way that protected the interests of Thika tenants

Construction in Interpretation of Statutes

beneficial construction in interpretation of statutes is particularly relevant in social welfare

legislation, labour laws and statutes aimed at protecting vulnerable groups. Examples include:

 Industrial Disputes Act: This act aims to provide protection and fair treatment to
workers. Courts have interpreted its provisions broadly to ensure that workers’ rights
are upheld and that they receive the benefits intended by the legislation.
 Consumer Protection Act: Designed to protect consumers’ rights, this act is often
interpreted in a manner that maximises consumer benefits. Courts tend to favour
interpretations that enhance consumer protection and address grievances effectively.
 Juvenile Justice Act: Aimed at safeguarding the interests of minors, this act is
interpreted liberally to ensure that juveniles receive the care, protection and
rehabilitation intended by the law.
 Labour Laws: Various labour-related statutes are interpreted to protect workers’
rights and promote fair labour practices. For instance, the Minimum Wages Act and
the Factories Act are construed to ensure that workers receive fair wages and work in
safe conditions.

enabling statute
enabling is a legal provision that permits or brings into force something that was previously
prohibited or forbidden. It creates new powers or extends existing ones. Let’s delve deeper
into this concept:
1. Definition:
o An enabling statute allows what was previously forbidden or introduces new
powers.
o It officially enables the operation of laws that were previously prohibited.
o In other words, it makes something lawful that might have been unlawful
without this specific statute.
2. Purpose and Effects:
o Enabling statutes serve several purposes:
 Creating Agencies: They establish new agencies and define their
purpose and powers by specifying rules and formalities.
 Defining Procedures: They outline procedural rules and formalities
for federal and administrative agencies.
 Expanding Common Law: Enabling statutes enlarge specific areas of
common law.
o For instance, the Land Acquisition Act authorizes the government to acquire
public property for public benefit, which would otherwise not be permissible.
3. Illustration:
o Consider Section 49-A and Section 49-A(2) of the Advocates Act, as amended
by Act 21 of 1964. These provisions exemplify enabling statutes1.
 In V.M. Kurian v .State of Kerala [19] , when the State Government of Kerala granted
exemption from the operation of the Kerala building Rules 1984 for the construction of a
high rise building in Cochin without the recommendation of greater Cochin Development
authority and the Chief Town Planner as provided in the rules, the Supreme Court held that
the order in ultra vires.
UNIT 5
Doctrine of Pith and Substance
The Constitution of India has divided the extent of legislative powers between the Centre and
states by way of the Seventh Schedule.
 The Seventh Schedule specifies the subject matters and divides the power to make
laws between the Centre and the State.
 List I or the Union List contains matters where the Centre has the power to
make laws, e.g. Defence, Foreign affairs and Currency.
 List II or the State list contains the subjects where the State has the power to
make laws, e.g. public order, health and sanitation.
 List III or the Concurrent List contains subjects where both the Centre and the
State have powers to legislate, e.g. Education, Forests and Administration of
Justice.
 Although their spheres of influence are well established in the Seventh Schedule,
there often arise conflicts as to whether the Centre or the State, as the case may be, is
encroaching upon the sphere of the other. To deal with this conflict, the courts in India
have evolved a few doctrines and the age-old doctrine of pith (essence of something)
and substance (essential part of something) is one among them.
Doctrine of Pith and Substance Origin
It is widely believed that the origin of the doctrine of pith and substance lies in Canada and it
was introduced in a case named Cushing v. Dupuy in the year 1880. The doctrine later made
its way to India and is firmly supported by Article 246 of the Constitution and the Seventh
Schedule. In India, it has evolved to become a celebrated doctrine that became the basis of
many landmark Supreme Court judgements.
What is the Doctrine of Pith and Substance?
The doctrine states that within their respective spheres the state and the union legislatures are
made supreme, they should not encroach upon the sphere demarcated for the other.
 However, if one among the state and the Centre does encroach upon the sphere of the
other, the courts will apply the Doctrine of Pith and Substance.
 If the pith and substance i.e., the true object of the legislation pertains to a subject
within the competence of the legislature that enacted it, it should be held to be intra
vires although it may incidentally encroach on the matters not within the competence
of the legislature.
The Privy Council applied this doctrine in Profulla Kumar Mukherjee v Bank of Khulna.
  In this case, the Bengal Money Lenders Act of 1946 enacted by the State Legislature
was challenged with the contention that parts of the legislation dealt with promissory
notes; a central subject.
 The Privy Council while upholding the validity of the impugned legislation stated that
the Bengal Money Lenders Act was in pith and substance a law relating to money
lenders and money lending – a state subject even though it incidentally trenches upon
Promissory note – a central subject.
In State of Bombay v FN Balsara, the Bombay Prohibition Act was challenged on the
ground that it accidentally encroaches upon import and export of liquor across custom
frontier – a central subject. The court while upholding the impugned legislation declared that
the Act was in pith and substance a State subject even though it incidentally encroached upon
a central subject.
Important ingredients that constitute the Doctrine of Pith and Substance
 The Doctrine is applied when the subject matter of List I of the Seventh Schedule is in
conflict with the subject matter of List II.
 The reason behind adopting this doctrine is that otherwise every law will be declared
invalid on the ground that it encroaches upon the subject matter of another sphere.
 The doctrine examines the true nature and substance of the legislation in order to
determine which List it belongs to.
 It takes into consideration whether the State has the power to make a law that
encroaches on a subject matter from another list.
 The doctrine was first applied and upheld by the Supreme Court in the FN Balsara
case.
The doctrine of pith and substance has provided the Indian constitutional scheme with much-
needed flexibility because in the absence of this doctrine every other law would have been
declared invalid because it incidentally encroaches upon the sphere of another legislature.
Apart from its applicability in cases related to the competency of the legislature as mentioned
in Article 246, the Doctrine of Pith and Substance is also applied in cases related to Article
254, which deals with the repugnancy in laws made by Parliament and laws made by the
State Legislatures. The doctrine is employed in such cases to resolve the inconsistency
between laws made by the Centre and the State Legislature.

Introduction
The doctrine of colourable legislation is a legal principle that aims to prevent the excessive
unconstitutional use of the legislative authority of the government. This doctrine is also
termed as the 'Fraud on the Constitution'.
What is the Origin of Doctrine of Colourable Legislation?
  This doctrine originated from the Latin maxim “quando aliquid prohibetur ex
directo, prohibetur et per obliquum” which means things that cannot be done
directly should not be done indirectly either.
 The doctrine of colourable legislation was introduced in India by the British
administration who adopted this doctrine from Canada and Australia.
 After independence, the doctrine of colourable legislation remained to be an integral
part of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI).
 The judiciary further developed the doctrine of colourable legislation through its
judgements to regulate the legislative authority of the government bodies.
What is the Doctrine of Colourable Legislation?
 This doctrine tests the competence of the legislature against an enacted law.
 It comes into play when a Legislature does not possess the power to make law upon
a particular subject but nonetheless indirectly makes one.
 By applying this principle, the fate of the Impugned Legislation is decided.
 It restricts the overstretching of the constituted power of the legislature in a
disguised, covert or indirect manner.
 This doctrine is usually applied to Article 246 of the COI which has demarcated the
Legislative Competence of the Parliament and the State Legislative Assemblies by
outlining the different subjects.
What is Article 246 of the COI?
 This Article deals with the subject-matter of laws made by Parliament and by the
Legislatures of States. It states that—
(1) Notwithstanding anything in clauses (2) and (3), Parliament has exclusive power to
make laws with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List I in the Seventh Schedule
(in this Constitution referred to as the “Union List”).
(2) Notwithstanding anything in clause (3), Parliament, and, subject to clause (1),
the Legislature of any State also, have power to make laws with respect to any of the
matters enumerated in List III in the Seventh Schedule (in this Constitution referred to as the
“Concurrent List”).
(3) Subject to clauses (1) and (2), the Legislature of any State has exclusive power to make
laws for such State or any part thereof with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List
II in the Seventh Schedule (in this Constitution referred to as the “State List”).
(4) Parliament has power to make laws with respect to any matter for any part of the
territory of India not included in a State notwithstanding that such matter is a matter
enumerated in the State List.
What is the Applicability Doctrine of Colourable Legislation?
  The Court applies this doctrine to determine the competency of the enactment of
such impugned legislation and examines its true and latent nature.
 If the Court finds any transgression of authority by the legislature in making such law,
it declares such law as void.
What are the Limitations of Doctrine of Colourable Legislation?
 Subordinate legislation is exempt from the doctrine. It is based only on the question
of a legislative body's competence to adopt certain legislation.
 It has no application when there is no constitutional limit and where the powers of a
legislature are not restricted by any limitation.
 It is unconcerned about whether the legislation is relevant or irrelevant.
 The notion is unrelated to the legislature's good or bad intentions. It merely considers
whether the adopted law falls within the jurisdiction of the legislature.
What is the Landmark Case of Doctrine of Colourable Legislation?
 R.S Joshi v. Ajit Mills (1977):
o The Supreme Court observed that in the statute of force, the colourable
exercise of or extortion on administrative force or misrepresentation on the
constitution, are articulations which only imply that the assembly is clumsy
to authorize a specific law, albeit the mark of competency is struck on it,
and afterwards it is colourable enactment.

The Doctrine of Occupied Field

Meaning:
When the Central Legislature makes a law on a particular subject and thereby occupies the
field, the state legislature have no power to enact any law on that field. In the event of their
doing so the State Legislature would, to that extent, become Unconstitutional
Article 254 (1) says that if any provision of law created by the law-makers of the State is
repulsive to any provision of a law created by Parliament that is competent to enact or to any
provision of the present law with relation to one in all the matters enumerated within the
Concurrent List, then the law created by Parliament, whether or not passed before or once the
law created by the law-makers of such stage or, because the case is also, the present law shall
prevail and therefore the law created by the law-makers of the State shall, to the extent of the
repugnancy be void.
Article 254 (1) solely applies wherever there’s inconsistency between a Central Law and a
State Law with reference to an issue mentioned within the Concurrent List. Article 254 of the
Constitution is just applicable once the State law is in ‘pith Associate in Nursing substance’ a
law with reference to an entry within the synchronous list on that the Parliament has
legislated. The question is however the repugnancy is to be determined? In M. Karunanidhi
v. Union of Republic of India, during this case, per Fazal Ali, J., the review concerning all
the sooner choices and outline the repugnancy can rise between the 2 statutes within the
following situation:
1. It should be shown that there’s clear and direct inconsistency between the 2
enactments- Central Act and State Act, that is irreconcilable , so they can not stand
alone or operate within the same field.
2. There is often no repeal by implication unless the inconsistency seems on the face of
the 2 statues.
3. Where the 2 statues occupy a specific field, however there’s area or chance of each
the statutes in operation within the same field while not coming back into collusion
with one another, no repugnancy results.
4. Where there’s no inconsistency however a sculpture occupying constant field seeks to
make distinct and separate offences, no doubt of repugnancy arises and each the
statutes still operate within the same field.
The on top rule of repugnancy is, however, subject to the exception provided in clause (2) of
this text. per clause (2) if a State Law with reference to Associate in Nursing of the matters
enumerated within the Concurrent List contains any provision repulsive to the provisions of
an earlier law created by Parliament, or Associate in Nursing existing law with reference to
that matter, then the State Law if has been reserved for the assent of the President and has
received his assent, shall prevail however such repugnancy. however it’d still be attainable
for the Parliament below the supply to clause (2) to override such a law by later creating a
law on constant matter. If it makes such a law the State Law would be void to the extent of
repugnancy with the Union Law.
The question of repugnancy between the Parliamentary Legislation and State legislation
arises in 2 ways. First, the legislations are enacted with relevancy matters assigned in their
fields however they overlap and conflict. Second, wherever the 2 legislations are with
relevancy the matters within the coincident list and there’s conflict. In each of these things,
the Parliamentary Legislations can predominate, within the 1st by virtue of the non- obstant
clause in Article 246 (1) and within the second by reason of Article 254 (1).
In Deep Chand v. State of U.P., the validity relating to the U.P Transport Service
Development Act was concerned. By this Act the regime was authorised to create the theme
for nationalisation of Motor Transport within the State. The Law was necessitated as a result
of the motorcars Act, 1939 didn’t contain any provision for the nationalisation of Motor
Transport Services. Later on, in 1956 the Parliament with the read to introduce a homogenous
law amended the motorcars Act, 1939, and value-added a replacement provision enabling the
regime to border rules of nationalisation of Motor Transport. The Court ordered that since
each the Union Law and also the State Law occupied a similar field, the State Law was void
to the extent of repugnancy to the Union Law.
In Zaverbhai v. State of Bombay, The Essential Supplies Act, 1946 was enacted by the
Parliament for control production, offer and distribution of essential commodities. a violation
of any provision of the higher than Act was punishable with imprisonment upto three years or
fine or each. In 1947, considering the social control inadequate, the metropolis law-makers
passed the associate degree Act enhancing the social control provided underneath the Central
Law. The Bombay Act received the assent of the President and therefore prevailed over the
Central Law and became operative in Bombay. Therefore, in 1950 Parliament amended its
Act of 1946 and increased social control. it had been controlled that as each occupied a
similar field (enhanced punishment) the State Law became void as being detestable to the
Central Law.
Case Law: The Curious case of state of Kerala vs. Mar Appraem Kuri
In this case the Centre enacted the Chit Funds Act. For the law to become operative in any
state, the Central Government would have to issue a notification. In the meantime, the State
of Kerala enacted a separate act on ‘Chit Funds’ called as Kerala Chitties Act.
The Court held, even though the Central Chit Funds Act was not brought in force is the state
of Kerala, it is still a law ‘made’ which is alive as an existing law.

Doctrine of Repugnancy
Introduction
 Repugnancy is an inconsistency or contradiction between two or more parts of a
Statute.
 The Doctrine of Repugnancy deals with conflict between two pieces of
legislation which when applied to the same facts produce different results.
What is the Doctrine of Repugnancy?
 The concept of Doctrine of Repugnancy is contained in Article 254 of
the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI).
 Article 254 of the COI deals with the inconsistency between laws made by
Parliament and laws made by the Legislatures of States. It states that -
1. If any provision of a law made by the Legislature of a State is repugnant to
any provision of a law made by Parliament which Parliament is competent to
enact, or to any provision of an existing law with respect to one of the matters
enumerated in the Concurrent List, then, subject to the provisions of clause
( 2 ), the law made by Parliament, whether passed before or after the law made
by the Legislature of such State, or, as the case may be, the existing
law, shall prevail and the law made by the Legislature of the State shall, to
the extent of the repugnancy, be void.
2. Where a law made by the Legislature of a State with respect to one of the
matters enumerated in the Concurrent List contains any provision
repugnant to the provisions of an earlier law made by Parliament or an
existing law with respect to that matter, then, the law so made by the
Legislature of such State shall, if it has been reserved for the consideration of
the President and has received his assent, prevail in that State.
Provided that nothing in this clause shall prevent Parliament from enacting at any time
any law with respect to the same matter including a law adding to, amending, varying or
repealing the law so made by the Legislature of the State.
 This doctrine was included as a mechanism to resolve this repugnancy between
the powers of the Parliament and State legislatures.
 This doctrine reflects the quasi-federal structure of the COI. It has clearly laid
down the powers of the Parliament and State legislature to avoid inconsistencies and
conflicts.
What are the Conditions for Doctrine of Repugnancy?
 The conditions which must be satisfied before any repugnancy could arise are as
follows:
o Clear and direct inconsistency between the Central Act and the State Act.
o Inconsistency is absolutely irreconcilable.
o The inconsistency between the provisions of the two Acts is of such nature as
to bring the two Acts into direct collision with each other and a situation is
reached where it is impossible to obey the one without disobeying the other.
What are the Landmark Case Laws of Doctrine of Repugnancy?
 M. Karunanidhi v. Union of India (1979):
o In this case, the Supreme Court summarized the test of repugnancy and
defined repugnancy as:
 Where the provisions of a Central Act and a State Act in the
Concurrent List are fully inconsistent and are absolutely irreconcilable,
the Central Act will prevail, and the State Act will become void in
view of the repugnancy.
 Where however a law passed by the State comes into collision with a
law passed by Parliament on an Entry in the Concurrent List, the State
Act shall prevail to the extent of the repugnancy and the provisions
of the Central Act would become void provided the State Act has been
passed in accordance with clause (2) of Article 254.
 Where a law passed by the State Legislature while being substantially
within the scope of the entries in the State List entrenches upon any
of the Entries in the Central List, the constitutionality of the law may
be upheld by invoking the doctrine of pith and substance if on an
analysis of the provisions of the Act it appears that by and large the law
falls within the four corners of the State List and entrenchment, if any,
is purely incidental or inconsequential.
 Where, however, a law made by the State Legislature on a subject
covered by the Concurrent List is inconsistent with and repugnant to
a previous law made by Parliament, then such a law can be protected
 by obtaining the assent of the President under Article 254(2) of the
Constitution. The result of obtaining the assent of the President would
be that so far as the State Act is concerned, it will prevail in the State
and overrule the provisions of the Central Act in their applicability
to the State only.
 Bharat Hydro Power Corporation. Ltd. v. State of Assam (2004):
o The Supreme Court held that if the two enactments operate in different fields
without encroaching upon each other, then there will be no repugnancy.
 Deep Chand v. State of U.P. (1959):
o The Supreme Court held that both the Central and State laws occupied the
same field, the State law were held to be void to the extent of repugnancy
and the Central law would prevail.