This doctrine first emerged in the Canadian Constitution. It related to an interpretation of statutes to solve the problem of competing legislation in the same field. The Doctrine of Pith and Substance is applied when the legislative competence of a legislature with regard to a particular enactment is challenged with reference to the entries in different legislative lists. The true nature and character of legislation needs to be ascertained. The doctrine states that union and state are supreme and hence they should not encroach upon each other’s sphere.
If on examination it is found that the legislation is in substance on a matter assigned to the legislature enacting that statute then it must be held valid entirely even though it may trench on the matters included in the list within the competence of other legislatures. Legislative matters in different lists are bound to overlap and therefore, incidental encroachments shall take place.
CASES WHERE THIS DOCTRINE WAS APPLIED
Prafulla Kumar Mukherjee vs. Bank of Commerce ltd.
In this case the constitutional validity of the Bengal Lenders Act, 1940 was challenged. This law aimed to limit the amount had interest rate that money lenders could charge on the loans. The Calcutta High Court initially ruled that the Act was valid under the authority of the Provincial Legislature. However, the decision was appealed to the Federal Court where it was reversed. The Federal court held that the act exceeded the legislative powers of the Bengal legislature. The privy council on further appeal, examined the true nature and essence of the act and held that the act was not void either on whole or in part due to its incidental encroachment into matters under Federal list. The case simplifies the application of “pith and Substance” doctrine in determining the validity of legislation that may incidentally touch upon subjects outside the enacting legislature’s jurisdiction.
State of Bombay vs. F.N. Balsara
Constitutional validity of Bombay Prohibition act was in issue. The question was whether the act fell under entry 31 of List II or entry 19 of List I. It was argued that prohibition of purchase, use of transport and sale of liquor would affect the import. The court rejected this argument and held the act to be valid. This was because the pith and substance of the act fell under entry 31 and not under entry 19 even though the act incidentally encroached upon central power of legislature.
Vijay Kumar Sharma vs. State of Karnataka
The Supreme Court held that the doctrine applies even when the parliament and state legislature legislates in the same list i.e., concurrent list but with respect to different entries. If the pith and substance of the two laws is the same then only Article 254(1) applies and not otherwise.
“Pith and Substance” refers to the actual essence of law. It is not the incidental effects on another field that is being contested, but the actual subject matter. The idea has also been used in India to give some flexibility to the otherwise strict power-sharing plan.
Also Read-
- DOCTRINE OF BASIC STRUCTURE
- DOCTRINE OF TERRITORIAL NEXUS
- Doctrine of Severability
- Doctrine of Eclipse
Written By– Palak Bhuwalka
Edited By– Vishakha Khatri
