Constitutional Interpretation | Constitutional Law - CLAT PG PDF Download

Constitutional Interpretation

The following are some of the key principles applied specially in interpreting the provisions of the constitution -

• Doctrine of pith and substance
• Doctrine of Colourable legislation
• Principle of Ancillary powers
• Principle of Occupied field
• Doctrine of repugnancy
• Principle of Territorial Nexus

 Doctrine of Pith and Substance 

• Pith means "true nature" or "essence" and substance means the essential nature underlying a phenomenon. Thus, the doctrine of pith and substance relates to finding out the true nature of a statute.
• This doctrine is widely used when deciding whether a state is within its rights to create a statute that involves a subject mentioned in Union List of the Constitution.
• The basic idea behind this principle is that an act or a provision created by the State is valid if the true nature of the act or the provision is about a subject that falls in the State list.
• The case of  State of Maharashtra v. F N Balsara  , illustrates this principle very nicely.
•  State of Maharashtra v. F N Balsara  : The State of Maharashtra passed the Bombay Prohibition Act, which prohibited the sale and storage of liquor. The appellant, who imported liquor, challenged the act, arguing that import and export were subjects in the Union list, and the state could not make laws regarding them.
• The Supreme Court rejected this argument, holding that the true nature of the act was the prohibition of alcohol in the state, a subject that belongs to the State list.
• The court examines the true character and nature of the act considering its purpose, scope, objective, and effects. Therefore, even if the act touches on the import of alcohol, it does not make it invalid.
• As held in  State of West Bengal v. Kesoram Industries, 2004  , courts must ignore the name given to the act by the legislature and disregard incidental encroachments, focusing on where the impact of the legislation falls.

 Principle of Incidental or Ancillary Powers 

• This principle is an addition to the doctrine of Pith and Substance. It means that the power to legislate on a subject includes the power to legislate on ancillary matters that are reasonably connected to that subject.
• It is not always enough to determine the constitutionality of an act by just looking at its pith and substance. Sometimes, it is necessary to see whether the matter referred to in the act is essential to give effect to the main subject of the act.
• For example, the power to impose tax includes the power to search and seize to prevent tax evasion. Similarly, the power to legislate on land reforms includes the power to legislate on land mortgage. However, the power related to banking cannot be extended to include non-banking entities.
• If a subject is explicitly mentioned in a State or Union list, it cannot be considered an ancillary matter. For instance, the power to tax is mentioned in specific entries in the lists, so it cannot be claimed as ancillary to any other entry.
• In the case of  State of Rajasthan v. G Chawla  , the court held that the power to legislate on a topic includes the power to legislate on an ancillary matter that is reasonably included in the topic.
• The underlying idea is that the grant of power includes everything necessary to exercise that power. However, the scope of power should not be extended unreasonably. The Supreme Court has consistently warned against such extended interpretations.
• For example, in the case of  R M D Charhaugwala v. State of Mysore  , the Supreme Court ruled that betting and gambling is a state subject under Entry 34 of the State list, but it does not include the power to impose taxes on betting and gambling because it is a separate item under Entry 62 in the same list.

 Doctrine of Colourable Legislation 

• This doctrine is based on the principle that what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly. If the constitution does not permit certain provisions of legislation, any provision with the same effect in an indirect manner is also unconstitutional.
• The doctrine is rooted in the wider concept of "fraud on the constitution." A thing is colourable when it appears to be one thing on the surface but is something else underneath.
•  K C Gajapati Narayan Deo v. State of Orissa  is a notable case illustrating this doctrine. The Supreme Court emphasized that legislative powers are distributed to various bodies, which must act within their respective spheres.
• These limitations are marked by specific legislative entries or, in some cases, by fundamental rights in the constitution. The question arises whether any provision transgresses these limits, either directly or indirectly.
• Transgressions can be evident, manifest, or direct, but they can also be covert, disguised, or indirect. The doctrine of colourable legislation applies to the latter class of transgressions.
• In such cases, even if the legislation appears to act within its powers, it actually exceeds them. This transgression is concealed by pretense or disguise.
• The validity of the Orissa Agricultural Income Tax (Amendment) Act 1950 was challenged in this context. It was argued that it was not a genuine taxation law but a colourable legislation aimed at artificially lowering the income of intermediaries to reduce compensation under the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1952.
• The Supreme Court ruled that it was not colourable legislation because the state had the authority to set taxes, regardless of fairness. The legislature's motive in enacting a law is irrelevant.
• In contrast, in  K T Moopil Nair v. State of Kerala  , a tax imposed under the Travancore Cochin Land Tax Act, 1955, was deemed so high that it exceeded the annual income from the land by a significant margin. The Supreme Court found the act violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(f) because it amounted to property confiscation under the guise of a tax.
• Similarly, in  Balaji v. State of Mysore  , the reservation of 68% of seats for students from backward classes was deemed a violation of Article 14, disguised as a provision under Article 15(4).

 Doctrine of Eclipse 

• The Doctrine of Eclipse deals with the fate of existing laws that conflict with fundamental rights when the Constitution comes into force. In the case of  Keshavan Madhava Menon v. The State of Bombay  , the law in question was an existing law that imposed restrictions on the exercise of the right guaranteed by Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
• Since these restrictions could not be justified as reasonable under Article 19(6) at that time, the existing law became void to the extent of its inconsistency with Part III of the Constitution, which guarantees fundamental rights.
• The court clarified that the law did not become void in its entirety or for all purposes, but only to the extent of such inconsistency. This means that the law continued to exist for past transactions and for the enforcement of rights and liabilities accrued before the Constitution came into effect.
• The law remained in force even after the commencement of the Constitution with respect to individuals who were not citizens and could not claim fundamental rights.
• Article 13(1) played a crucial role in nullifying or rendering the existing law ineffectual only concerning the exercise of the fundamental right after the Constitution's commencement.
• The law became "eclipsed" by the fundamental right for the time being. Such laws are not dead for all purposes; they continue to exist for pre-Constitution rights and liabilities.
• The Eclipse can vanish if a subsequent amendment to the Constitution removes the inconsistency, making the law active again.
• This doctrine highlights that pre-Constitution laws violating fundamental rights are not null and void from the beginning but become unenforceable only to the extent of their inconsistency with fundamental rights.

 Doctrine of Occupied Field 

• This doctrine is closely related to the doctrine of Pith and Substance. When determining whether a particular law relates to a specific subject mentioned in one list or another, the court focuses on the substance of the matter.
• The difference between the doctrine of Repugnancy and the Doctrine of Occupied Field is subtle. Repugnance arises only when there is an actual conflict between two legislations, one enacted by the State Legislature and the other by Parliament, both of which have the competence to do so.
• On the other hand, the Doctrine of Occupied Field refers to those legislative entries in the State List that are expressly made 'subject' to a corresponding Entry in either the Union List or the Concurrent List.
• The Doctrine of Occupied Field is not concerned with the conflict of laws between the state and the center. It is merely focused on the 'existence of legislative power,' whereas repugnance deals with the 'exercise of legislative power' that is shown to exist.
• The Doctrine of Occupied Field comes into play even before the Union Law or the State Law has commenced. Under Article 254, as soon as a Union law receives the assent of the President, it is considered 'a law made by the Parliament.'
• The actual commencement of the law is not important for the purpose of attracting the Doctrine of Occupied Field.

 Doctrine of Territorial Nexus 

• Article 245 (2) of the Constitution of India states that 'No law made by Parliament shall be deemed invalid on the ground that it would have extra-territorial operation.' This means that a legislation cannot be questioned solely because it has extra-territorial operation.
• It is well-established that the Courts in India must enforce the law with the available machinery and are not entitled to question the authority of the Legislature in making a law with extra-territorial aspects.
• Extra-territorial operation does not invalidate a law. However, in certain cases, such as those involving taxation statutes, some nexus with India may still be necessary.
• The Legislature of a State may make laws for the whole or any part of the State. This raises the question of whether a particular law is truly within the competence of the State Legislature enacting it. Courts have consistently held that the laws a state can make must be for the purpose of that State.
• The Doctrine of Territorial Nexus applies to the States as well. Two conditions have been laid down in this respect:
• The connection (nexus) must be real and not illusory.
• The liability sought to be imposed must be pertinent to that connection.
• If these two conditions are met, further examination of the sufficiency of Nexus is not a matter of consideration before the courts.
• In various cases related to taxation statutes, courts have reiterated that it is not necessary for the sale or purchase to occur within the Territorial Limits of the State. Local activities of buying or selling conducted in the State concerning local goods would be sufficient basis to sustain the taxing power of the State, provided these activities ultimately result in concluded sale or purchase to be taxed.
• There is also a presumption of constitutionality, where the Legislature is presumed not to have exceeded its constitutional powers, and a construction consistent with those powers is to be put upon the laws enacted by the Legislature.
• The Parliament is empowered to make laws regarding aspects or causes that occur, arise, or exist, or may be expected to do so, within the territory of India and also concerning extra-territorial aspects or causes that have an impact or nexus with India.
• These laws fall within the meaning, purport, and ambit of the grant of powers to Parliament to make laws 'for the whole or any part of the territory of India.' Such laws may not be invalidated on the ground that they require extra-territorial operation.
• Laws enacted by Parliament concerning extra-territorial aspects or causes that have no nexus with India would be ultra vires and would be laws made for a foreign territory. As long as a law enacted by Parliament has a nexus with India, even if it requires extra-territorial operation, it cannot be considered constitutionally invalid.

 Amendment of the Constitution 

The amendment of the Constitution involves making changes to certain provisions or updating external features to align with contemporary needs. This process is crucial to ensure that the Constitution remains relevant and reflective of current realities.

 Requirement of the Constitutional Amendment 

• The provision for amending the Constitution prevents reliance on extraconstitutional means like revolution or violence, preserving the integrity of the Constitution.
• Amendments are necessary to address potential future challenges in the Constitution's implementation.
• They help rectify loopholes present at the time of the Constitution's enactment.
• Amendments accommodate the changing ideals, priorities, and visions of different generations.

 Procedures for Amending the Constitution 

The Constitution can be amended through various methods, including  simple majority, special majority  , and  ratification by at least half the states  . The core amendment procedure is outlined in Article 368 of the Indian Constitution, which is described as follows:

•  Power of Parliament to Amend the Constitution (Article 368): 
•  Initiation:  An amendment can be initiated by introducing a Bill in either House of Parliament.
•  Approval:  The Bill must be passed by a majority of the total membership of each House present and voting.
•  Presidential Assent:  Once passed, the Bill is presented to the President for assent, after which the Constitution is amended accordingly.
•  Special Cases:  If the amendment involves changes to certain articles or provisions, it requires ratification by at least half the state legislatures before being presented to the President.
•  Article 13 Exemption:  Article 13 does not apply to amendments made under Article 368.
•  Constituent Power:  There are no limitations on Parliament's power to amend the Constitution under this article.

K.G. Balakrishnan, a former Chief Justice of India, noted that the amendment process strikes a balance between flexibility and rigidity. Granville Austin, a scholar of the Indian Constitution, praised the process as well-conceived, emphasizing its diversity despite appearing complex.