Latest News
Back
The Doctrine of Pith and Substance
The doctrine of Pith and Substance
The Constitutional makers of India have provided us with so many routes in the Constitution to solve any problem in a standardized way. It has helped the court in finding, one of the most problematic issue of the country. This article will explain the doctrine of Pith and Substance which is a recognized principle in the Indian Constitution. It helps in categorizing the fields of legislation between Centre and State.
The seventh schedule of Indian Constitution specifies the subject – matter and allocates the powers and functions between Centre and State in three lists - Union, State and Concurrent list. It makes easy for the legislature to make laws and court to order. Matters related to Union list seen by the Parliament and state list by respective state legislatures. The subject-matter of the seventh schedule is not the powers but the fields of legislation. Article 245 and 246 makes it more clear by specifying the extent and subject - a matter of the Parliament and State legislature to make laws and resolves the matter.
The doctrine of Pith and Substance was first acknowledged in Canada. The meaning of the term Pith is “true nature” or “the essence of something” and Substance is “a most important part of something”. The court applies this doctrine when the matters of any list encroach the boundary of other lists. It identifies the true nature of the matter and its basis and gives judgement whether the said legislation will fall under this list or not.
The purpose behind the adoption of this doctrine is to make the rigid scheme of distribution of powers flexible between the Centre and State. Otherwise, every legislation will be declared invalid because it encroached powers of other lists and will drastically limit the power of the legislature. Here, the real subject matter is challenged and nor its incidental effect on another field.
The case Prafulla Kumar Mukherjee v. the Bank of Commerce has put the clarity on this issue by explaining that State Legislature dealing with any matter may accidentally affect any item of Union List. The court held that whatever may be the incidental effects to the statute made by the state legislature, such a matter must be allocated to the appropriate list based on the true nature of the matter.
Thus, it depends upon the incidental or real encroachment on the matters by the state legislatures on the Parliament. If there is an incidental encroachment by the State legislature on any matter of the Union list, it will not affect the enacted law of state legislature.
The Supreme Court applied this doctrine in the case of Bombay v. F.N. Balasara A.I.R. 1951 SC 318. The case was related to the Bombay Prohibition Act which was challenged because it encroaches the import and export of liquor across custom frontiers which is a central subject.
The court held that the act is legitimate based on the doctrine of Pith and Substance, the true nature of the law fell under the state list and state legislature can make the related laws, even if the matter is encroaching the Union list.
This doctrine benefitted the court to find the true nature of the subject matter and has the power to allocate it to a suitable list. It is very necessary for the court to examine its scope and effects, whether the allocation is genuine or not.
