PRINCIPLES OF CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRESTATION

INTRODUCTION

The Constitution is a foundational law that sets out the framework of governance. However, it doesn't cover
every possible situation. When new issues or conflicts arise, judges are tasked with interpreting the Constitution
to apply it to these situations. This process of interpretation involves understanding the true meaning of the
Constitution's words, which may not always be clear or specific.

WHAT IS INTERPRETATION?

Interpretation refers to the process of determining the true meaning of words used in a law or statute. It involves
understanding what the legislature intended when the law was written, whether the intention is explicitly stated
or implied. Courts follow certain principles (rules of interpretation) to help them understand and apply the law
correctly.

CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION:

The Constitution is a living document that serves as the fundamental law of the land. While the rules for
interpreting the Constitution are similar to those for other statutes, interpreting the Constitution requires a
broader, more flexible approach because it deals with essential principles like human rights, democracy, and
justice.

 Harmonious Construction
 Doctrine of pith and substance
 Colourable legislation
 Ancillary powers
 Occupied field
 Residuary powers
 Doctrine of repugnancy

1. HARMONIOUS CONSTRUCTION

The doctrine or the rule of harmonious construction is adopted when there is a conflict between two or more
statues or between the parts or provisions of the statues. The courts in every case harmonize the contradictory
provisions by interpreting not only the provisions but also the original intention of the law or rule maker in order
to give effect to both the provisions and ensure not to make any of the two provisions void or to destroy it.

When there is “a conflict between two or more statues” or “two or more parts of a statute”, then the rule of
harmonious construction needs to be adopted. The rule follows a very simple presumption that every statute has
a purpose and intent as per law and should be read as a whole. The interpretation consistent of all the provisions
of the statute should be adopted. In the case in which it shall be impossible to harmonize both the provisions, the
court’s decision regarding the provision shall prevail.

In Bhatia International v Bulk trading SA, it was held that if more than one interpretation is possible for a
statute, then the court has to choose the interpretation which depicts (outlines) the intention of the legislature.

Bengal Immunity Co. v. State of Bihar, 1955

This case highlighted the limits of the doctrine. The Court held that conflicting provisions should be interpreted
to allow both to be effective. However, if it is impossible to harmonise the provisions, the less useful provision
can be ignored, provided there is no compulsion to adopt it.

Jagdish Singh v. Lt. Governor, Delhi, 1997

Here, the Supreme Court reiterated the need to read statutes harmoniously, ensuring that no provision becomes
ineffective. The court emphasised that the objective of harmonious construction is to avoid conflict and promote
the smooth functioning of the legislative intent.

2. DOCTRINE OF PITH AND SUBSTANCE

Pith means 'true nature' or essence of something' and substance means 'the most important or essential part of
something'.

Pith means "true nature" or "essence" and substance mean the essential nature underlying a phenomenon. Thus,
the doctrine of pith and substance relates to finding out the true nature of a statute.

The Pith and Substance doctrine helps determine if a law made by a state is valid, especially when it touches
on topics listed in the Union (central) or State list of the Constitution. The idea is simple: if a state law deals
mainly with a subject that falls under the State List, it is valid, even if it may have some connection to a topic in
the Union List.

Both the Union and State Legislatures are supreme in their own areas, and they shouldn't interfere with each
other's powers. If a law crosses into the other's area, the courts use the Pith and Substance principle to figure
out which list the law truly belongs to and decide if the law is valid.

 Premchand Jain v. R.K. Chhabra (1984)

This case confirmed that if a state law incidentally touches on matters outside its authority, it doesn’t
automatically become invalid. As long as the law primarily falls within the powers given to the state by the
Constitution, it can still be valid even if it briefly overlaps with another area.

 State of Bombay v. Narottamdas (1950)

Here, the court clarified that a law can be valid despite some incidental overlap with another jurisdiction’s area.
The main point is that the true nature (pith and substance) of the law must fall under the enacting legislature’s
powers. If the law is mainly within the enacting authority's domain, it remains valid, even if it touches on other
areas a little.

 Krishna v. State of Madras (1956)

In this case, the Madras Prohibition Act was challenged because it seemed to conflict with the central Criminal
Procedure Code. However, the court upheld the state law because, in pith and substance, it dealt with
intoxicating liquors, which is a subject on the State List. The case shows how the Pith and Substance doctrine
can be used to decide if a state law is valid, even if it touches on central areas.

3. COLOURABLE LEGISLATION

The Doctrine of Colourable Legislation is based on the idea that "what cannot be done directly, cannot be
done indirectly." This means that a legislature cannot do something that it does not have the power to do, even
if it tries to do so by using indirect or deceptive means. If a legislature creates a law that appears to be within its
jurisdiction, but in reality, it’s an attempt to do something beyond its power (e.g., passing a law in a way that
pretends to belong to its list but is really addressing a matter outside its scope), that law is considered
"colourable"—meaning it is a fraud on the Constitution.

When there’s a dispute about whether a legislature has overstepped its powers, the courts examine the law's pith
and substance to determine if it falls within the jurisdiction of the enacting legislature. The extent of the
encroachment is a critical factor when determining whether a law is colourable.

In State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh (1952), the Supreme Court ruled that the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950,
was unconstitutional. The Act took all rent from the landlord’s land and only returned half as compensation,
which the Court saw as a form of "naked confiscation." Despite claiming to offer compensation, its true purpose
was to confiscate property, making it invalid.

In Naga People's Movement for Human Rights v. Union of India (1997), the Supreme Court explained that the
doctrine of Colourable Legislation applies only when:

a) The true intent of the law is hidden.

b) The law is meant to interfere with the jurisdiction of another legislature.
Even if a law's purpose differs from its appearance, it is not considered Colourable Legislation if the legislature
has the authority to pass it. The Court emphasized that the question isn't whether the law was passed with good
or bad motives, but whether the law falls within the legislature's authority to make.

4. ANCILLARY POWERS

The principle of incidental or ancillary powers means that when interpreting the Constitution, words granting
legislative power should be understood broadly. If the language is wide and general, it should be interpreted to
fully reflect its broad meaning, rather than narrowly. This principle adds to the doctrine of Pith and Substance,
which says that a law’s main purpose (pith and substance) should be examined to determine its constitutionality.
However, sometimes it's not enough to just look at the main subject of a law; we must also consider if the law
covers matters that are reasonably connected and essential to achieving the law’s primary purpose.

5. OCCUPIED FIELD

The Doctrine of Occupied Field is a legal principle in Constitutional Law that deals with the distribution of
powers to the government at different levels within a federal system. It ssentially means that if a particular
subject matter or field is exclusively occupied by legislation at one level of government, I.e., either central or
state, then the other level of government cannot legislate on the same subject matter. This doctrine helps avoid
conflicts and overlaps in legislative authority.

Article 254 of the Constitution of India deals with the concept of inconsistency between laws made by the
central government and the laws made by the state governments on matters that are in the Concurrent List of the
Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. Article 254 of the Indian Constitution addresses what happens when there
is a conflict between laws created by the national government and those made by the state governments on
certain topics that both levels of government have the authority to legislate on.

In simple terms, when there is a disagreement between a law passed by the national or central government and a
law passed by a state government, and both laws are related to subjects listed in the Concurrent List of the
Constitution, the national law usually prevails.

 In The State of Bombay v. United Motors (India) Ltd. (1953), the Supreme Court addressed whether
the state government could impose a tax on the sale of motor vehicles, which was already taxed by the
central government under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.
The Court ruled that the central government had exclusive power over taxing the sale of goods,
including motor vehicles. Therefore, the state’s tax on the sale of motor vehicles was unconstitutional,
as it conflicted with the central government’s authority.
 In *S.R. Bommai v. Union of India* (1994), the Supreme Court examined the central government’s
decision to dissolve the Karnataka state government under Article 356, claiming a constitutional
breakdown. Article 356 allows the President to impose "President's Rule" if the state’s government
cannot function according to the Constitution.
The Court ruled that the imposition of President's Rule could be judicially reviewed. It emphasized that
the power to dissolve a state government was not absolute and could not be used arbitrarily or for
political reasons. The Court confirmed that President's Rule could only be imposed in genuine cases of
constitutional breakdown, and the action could be reviewed by the judiciary to prevent misuse.

6. DOCTRINE OF REPUGNANCY

The doctrine of repugnancy addresses conflicts between state and central laws in India. Article 254 of the Indian
Constitution provides the framework for resolving such conflicts.
Article 254(1)
Article 254(1) states that if a state law is repugnant (i.e., incompatible) with:
 A law that the Parliament is competent to enact, or
 An existing law under the Concurrent List,
then the central or existing law prevails and the state law is void to the extent of the repugnancy. The
chronology of the laws’ enactment is irrelevant.
Key Points:
  Central Law Prevails: In case of conflict, the central law overrides the state law.
 Repugnant Provisions: The conflicting parts of the state law do not become ultra vires (beyond
powers); they are merely eclipsed. If the central law is repealed, the state law provisions become
operative again.
 Doctrine of Pith and Substance: This doctrine is used to determine if the true nature of the state law
falls under a matter listed in the Concurrent List. If the repugnancy is with a central law, it must be
assessed whether Parliament intended to create an exhaustive code on the matter. If not, any
qualifications or restrictions by the state law are not considered repugnant.
Article 254(2)
Article 254(2) provides an exception where a state law on a concurrent matter, repugnant to a central law, can
prevail if it receives Presidential assent. However, this only applies to the state concerned and not uniformly
across the country.
Key Points:
 Presidential Assent: The state law can override the central law if it receives Presidential assent, but it
must be specified that the assent is sought for the repugnancy with a particular act. Failing to specify
this makes the state law invalid.
 State-Specific Application: The inconsistent provisions apply only within the state that enacted the
law.
 Subsequent Central Laws: If the central government enacts a new law conflicting with the state act
that had Presidential assent, the central law prevails, as held in Pt. Rishikesh v. Salma Begum (1995).

Srinivasa Raghavachar v. State of Karnataka, 1987

The case involved a state law restricting legal practitioners from appearing before land tribunals. The Supreme
Court found the state law invalid due to its repugnancy to the Advocates Act, 1961

 Kumar Sharma v. State of Karnataka (1990): The Court ruled that for a state law to be invalid due to
repugnancy, it must deal with a matter in the Concurrent List. If the laws cover different subjects, both can
coexist. However, a dissenting opinion argued that irreconcilable conflicts should lead to the state law being
struck down.

 Variyar Thavathiru Sundara Swamigal Medical Education & Charitable Trust v. State of Tamil Nadu
(1996): The Court invalidated a Tamil Nadu law on medical college affiliations because it conflicted with the
Indian Medical Council Act, which was considered a comprehensive federal law on the matter.

7. RESIDUARY POWERS

The framers of the Constitution had placed matters of national concern in the Union List and those of purely
State or local significance in the State List. Matters that are of common interest to the States and the Union were
placed in the Concurrent List, in order to ensure uniformity in legislation with due regard to the country’s
diversity. However, foreseeing the possibility of a situation in which legislation might be required on matters
that are not mentioned in any of the three Lists, the Founding Fathers made residuary provisions in Article 248
of the Constitution and Entry 97 of the Union List. The residuary powers of legislation are vested in Parliament.

The scope of residuary powers is limited because the Union, State, and Concurrent lists already cover all
possible subjects. The court can decide whether a subject falls under these lists or the residuary power. The
purpose of residuary powers is to allow Parliament to legislate on subjects that were not anticipated when the
Constitution was drafted. However, the framers intended that residuary powers should only be used as a last
resort, not as the first option.