Scribd
Upload
2K views1 page

In Prafulla Kumar Mukherjee V

The document discusses several court cases related to determining whether a law passed by a provincial or state legislature is valid given divisions of powers between central/federal and state legislatures. The key cases discussed established that a law will not be considered invalid if, though it may incidentally relate to matters under another legislature's authority, its central purpose or "pith and substance" addresses a matter that is rightly under the authority of the legislature that passed it. The document emphasizes the importance of examining the true nature and focus of a law to determine its validity, rather than invalidating it due to minor encroachments on other legislative authorities.

Uploaded by

Kanchan Verma
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
2K views1 page

In Prafulla Kumar Mukherjee V

The document discusses several court cases related to determining whether a law passed by a provincial or state legislature is valid given divisions of powers between central/federal and state legislatures. The key cases discussed established that a law will not be considered invalid if, though it may incidentally relate to matters under another legislature's authority, its central purpose or "pith and substance" addresses a matter that is rightly under the authority of the legislature that passed it. The document emphasizes the importance of examining the true nature and focus of a law to determine its validity, rather than invalidating it due to minor encroachments on other legislative authorities.

Uploaded by

Kanchan Verma
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

In Prafulla Kumar Mukherjee v. Bank of Commerce Ltd.

, AIR 1947 PC 60 the Judicial


Committee of the Privy Council held that the Bengal Money-lenders Act, 1940 was not void
either in whole or in part as being ultra vires the provincial legislature on the ground that it
incidentally trenched upon matters reserved to the Federal Legislature; the Court held that as
the pith and substance of the Act was mone lending it fell within Item 27 of List II of the Seventh
Schedule to the Government of India Act, 1935 and was therefore within the competence of the
State Legislature and that the Act was not rendered invalid because it incidentally trenched
upon the matters reserved to the Federal Legislature viz. promissory notes and banking being
Items 28 and 38 of List I of the Seventh Schedule of the Government of India Act, 1935. In the
case of A.M.S.S.V.M & Co. v. State of Madras AIR 1954 Mad 291 the validity of the Madras
Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 in so far as it related to fisheries in
the seas was challenged as being beyond the competence of the Madras Legislature as the topic
of 'Fishing, or fisheries beyond territorial waters' was a Central subject but the challenge was
negatived and the Court held that the impugned Act was in pith and substance a legislation in
respect of land and land tenure and not a legislation of fishing and fisheries in the seas, that the
provisions of the Act in respect of fisheries in the seas were incidental to the effective legislation
on the subject which was within the competence of the Madras Legislature. It is true that the
decision was to some extent based on the elaborate history pertaining to Zamindari estate which
was abolished and became vested in the State Government under the impugned Act but the
general principle that the incidental encroachment will not invalidate an enactment if in pith
and substance it deals with the subject properly falling within the legislative competence of the
State Legislature was approved and applied. In the case of the State of Bombay v. F.N.
Balsara AIR 1951 SC 318, the same principle has been enunciated that the validity of Act is not
affected if it incidentally trenches upon matters outside the authorised field; therefore, it is
necessary to enquire in each case what is the pith and substance of the Act impugned and if the
Act when so viewed, substantially falls within the powers expressly conferred upon the
Legislature which enacted It, then, it will not be held to be invalid merely because it incidentally
encroaches upon matters which have been assigned to another legislation. The same principle
was reiterated by the Supreme Court in Katra Education Society v. State of Uttar Pradesh, .

You might also like