DOCTRI MEANING OF THE DOCTRINE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION CASE LAWS EXCEPTIONS/ LIMITATIONS

NE FOR THE DOCTRINE

1. Doctrine ● The doctrine of equality, Article 14 of the constitution 1) The case of State of Though this doctrine
of embodies the principle explicitly incorporates the Punjab v. Okara Grain “equal protection of laws”/
Equality that all individuals are Doctrine of Equality. It Buyers Union (1979), “equality” prohibits class
entitled to equal mandates that the State shall emphasized that while legislation, it permits
treatment before the law not deny equality before law imposing taxes, the state reasonable classification of
and equal protection of and equal protection of laws cannot arbitrarily select persons or things under the
their rights. to any person within the persons, properties, or second part of Article 14. This
● It serves as a cornerstone territory of India. businesses for differential gives the rise to the
of democratic societies, treatment without any doctrine of reasonable
aiming to prevent reasonable basis. Taxation classification.
arbitrary discrimination must be based on a valid
and ensure fairness and classification that does not
justice for all members of violate the principle of
society. equality.
● The doctrine of
equality specifically 2) In Waman Rao v. Union
regarding taxation, of India (1981), the
ensures that the Supreme Court reiterated
government treats all that while taxation laws
individuals equally enjoy a presumption of
under the law when constitutionality, they must
imposing taxes. This not be discriminatory and
means that the should treat similarly
government cannot situated persons equally.
discriminate among Any arbitrary
taxpayers arbitrarily or discrimination would
unjustly. Tax laws must render the tax law
apply uniformly to all unconstitutional.
individuals or groups in
similar situations without
any discrimination based
on factors such as
religion, race, caste, sex,
or place of birth.
2 Doctrine ● The doctrine of ⮚ A framework for 1) In Kunnathat Thathunni The limitation for this doctrine
. of reasonable classification establishing reasonable Moopil Nair v. State of id the rule of arbitrariness.
Reasona is a legal principle classification among Kerala (1961), the
ble ensuring fair and just different individuals or Supreme Court held that That the classification made
Classific treatment under Article groups of society is taxing statutes must not must be reasonable and not
ation 14 of the Constitution of provided under Article 14 be arbitrary or arbitrary in nature.[R.D
India. of the Constitution. discriminatory. The court Shetty v International
● It allows for the lawful emphasized that while the Airport Authority (1979
grouping of individuals or state has the power to AIR 1628)]
entities based on classify individuals for
intelligible differentia, taxation purposes, such
with a rational connection classification must be
to the legislative based on intelligible
purpose. differentia and should have
● This classification a rational nexus with the
recognizes that not all object of the law. This case
cases are identical and laid down the foundation
permits tailored for the principle that tax
treatment for specific laws must treat taxpayers
groups, preventing equally and fairly.
arbitrary discrimination.
2) In Union of India v. P.D.
Gopikrishnan Nair
Essentials of Doctrine of (1986), The Supreme
Reasonable Classification: Court held that tax laws
[State of West Bengal v. must be based on
Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952)] intelligible differentia and
must have a rational nexus
a. Intelligible Differentia: with the object sought to
A valid classification must be achieved. Arbitrary
be based on intelligible classification leading to
differentia, a discriminatory taxation
characteristic that would be violative of
differentiates the Article 14.
grouped individuals from
those excluded. This 3) In the case of Ishwari
distinction should be Khetan Sugar Mills (P)
reasonable and clearly Ltd. v. State of U.P.
discernible. (1980), the Supreme
Court observed that taxing
b. Rational Nexus: The statutes are not immune
differentia must have a from judicial scrutiny under
rational nexus with the Article 14, and if there is
objective the legislation an unreasonable
seeks to achieve. There discrimination in taxation,
should be a logical it would be struck down as
connection between the unconstitutional.
classification and the
purpose of the law.
3 Doctrine ● According to the Doctrine Under article 245 of the Indian 1) In the case of A.H. Wadia Extra-territorial operations:
. of of Territorial Nexus, laws constitution, it has been v. Income Tax
Territori made by a state stated that: Commissioner it was held ● Parliament is conferred
al Nexus legislature are not ⮚ Parliament has jurisdiction that a question of with the power to make
applicable outside that to make laws for extraterritoriality of laws within its territorial
state, except when there extraterritorial operations enactment can never be jurisdiction and also for
is a sufficient nexus or laws for the whole or raised against a supreme extra-territorial purpose
between the state and any part of the country. legislative authority on the that has a legitimate
the object. The doctrine ⮚ The state legislature has grounds of questioning its nexus with India. (A.H.
states that in order for a the jurisdiction to make validity. It may not comply Wadia v. Income Tax
state law to have an laws for the whole or any with the rules of Commissioner)
extraterritorial operation, part of the state. international law or while
there must be a nexus Thus it can be said that both enforcing it practical ● Whereas the laws made
between the object and the union and the state have difficulties may arise but by a state legislature are
the State. their own territorial they are subjected to not applicable outside the
jurisdiction to make laws. questions of policy which is state, except when there
the concern of the national is a sufficient nexus
The Doctrine of Territorial Under article 245(2) of the or domestic tribunal. between the state and the
nexus can be invoked under Indian constitution, if any law object.
the following circumstances- is made by the parliament 2) In the State of Bombay
● Whether a particular regarding the extraterritorial vs R.M.D.
state has extra-territorial operations, no questions can Chamarbaugwala , the
operation. be raised on its validity. Thus respondent who was not a
the validity of a legislation resident of Bombay
● If there is a territorial can’t be questioned. In this conducted a prize
nexus between the case, a court is bound to competition of a crossword
subject- matter of the Act enforce the laws made with puzzle through a
and the state making the regards to extra-territorial newspaper which was
law. operations. This legislation printed and published in
can’t be invalidated. the Bangalore. This paper
was widely published in
Bombay too. For this
 competition depots were
established so that the
forms and fees can be
collected. It attracted a lot
of buyers for the ticket of
that competition. The state
government then levy tax
over the respondents
company for contesting a
prize competition in the
state. The respondent
challenged the supreme
court and a question was
raised whether the tax can
be levied upon a person
who resides outside the
territorial limits of the
state. It was held by the
supreme court that there
was a sufficient territorial
nexus and the legislature
has the authority to tax the
respondent for the revenue
earned by his company
through the prize
competition.

3) In Tata Iron And Steel

Company vs. Bihar
State Tax Act, The State
of Bihar passed sales tax
act for levying a tax on
the sales whether it took
place within the territorial
limits of the state or
outside of that limit, it was
also stated that the goods
should be manufactured in
the state. In the instant
case, it was held that there
was an established nexus
between the object which
was to be taxed and the
law. These are the two
essential elements that
constitute the doctrine of
territorial nexus.

4) In State of Bihar v.
Charusila Dasi, the State
of Bihar passed a
legislation which dealt with
the motive to safeguard
the properties relating to
 the Hindu religious trusts.
This act consists of all the
trusts within the territorial
limits of Bihar. So the
respondent made a trust
deed with several of her
properties situated in Bihar
and Calcutta, and the trust
was inside the territorial
limits of Bihar. Several
questions were raised
about the scope of this act.
It was held that the act
passed by the state of
Bihar could have the effect
over the property situated
outside the territorial limits
of Bihar keeping in mind
that the trust must be
situated with the limits of
the state and there exist
the sufficient nexus.
4 Doctrine ● In general, the doctrine of In the Indian Constitution, the 1) In Governor-General of ◆ The phrase “Save in so
. of immunity of provisions governing inter- India in Council v. far as Parliament may
Immunit instrumentalities grants governmental tax immunities Corporation of Calcutta, by law otherwise
y from immunity from taxation are outlined in a limited the Calcutta Corporation, provide” within Article
Instrum to the properties, scope, primarily within operating under Section 285 of the Indian
entality functions and Articles 285, 287, 288 and 141 of the Calcutta Constitution indicates
instrumentalities of one 289. Municipal Act, assessed that Parliament has the
level of government the value of premises, authority to enact laws
when it operates within ⮚ Article 285, Clause 1, of including land and allowing a State or any
the jurisdiction of another the Indian Constitution buildings, for the purpose authority within a State
level of government in a establishes that property of taxation. The central to impose taxes on
federal system. owned by the Union is issue in the case revolved Union property. The
immune from taxation around whether additional primary purpose of Clause
● Thus the doctrine of imposed by a State or any buildings constructed on (1) in Article 285 is not to
immunity of authority within a State. the premises after April 1, completely prevent State
instrumentalities However, Clause 2 1937 (when Part III of the or local taxation of Union
stipulates that both the introduces an exception, Act came into effect), were Property, but rather to
State and Central allowing a State to impose exempt from taxation. The bring such taxation under
Governments possess taxes on Union properties court’s decision in this the control and regulation
immunity from being that were previously liable case established that, for of Parliament.
subjected to taxes for taxation by the State assessment purposes, the
imposed by the other. before the Constitution’s valuation of the property in ◆ Similarly, Clause 2 of
This immunity applies to commencement, as long question should be based Article 285 empowers
entities established by as such taxes continue to on its composition as of local bodies to tax Union
these governments, be levied by the State and March 1, 1937. Any properties that were
specifically Statutory no contrary legislation is buildings constructed after previously liable for or
Corporations established enacted by Parliament. that date should be treated as liable to
by them. entirely excluded from the taxation before the
⮚ Articles 287 and 288 assessment. The proviso commencement of the
partially incorporate the attached to Section 154 of Constitution, unless
doctrine of immunity of the Government of India Parliament legislates
instrumentalities Act, 1935, clarified that otherwise. These
 concerning the Union. properties treated as liable provisions create
They grant immunity to immediately before April exceptions to the doctrine
specific activities 1937 would not enjoy the of immunity of
conducted by the Union, exemption provided by the instrumentalities, allowing
rather than its property. main provision of the for specific circumstances
These articles specifically section. However, this under which Union
exempt the consumption proviso did not affect new property may be subject
or sale of electricity or buildings that did not exist to State or local taxation,
water by Union agencies on March 31, 1937 and under two conditions:
from any State taxation. were therefore not subject
to taxation on that date. 1. The tax they seek to
⮚ Article 289, under Clause Consequently, any impose must be the same
1, restricts the Union’s additional building was to as the tax that was
taxing authority by be excluded from the previously being levied on
exempting State property subsequent valuation, Union property.
and income from its treated as non-existent 2. The local authority making
taxation. Nevertheless, and the valuation this claim must be within
Article 289(2) introduces conducted based on the the same State where it is
an exception, allowing for land and buildings as they asserting the right to
the taxation of business existed prior to April 1937. continue the tax levy.
operations of the State, [Governor-General of India
State property used for 2) In the case of R.D. Shetty in Council v. Corporation of
trade or business or v. Airport Authority of Calcutta]
income generated from India, Justice P.N.
such activities if Bhagwati proposed a five-
authorised by Parliament. point test to determine
Article 289(3) further whether a body is an
stipulates that if a trade or agency or instrumentality
business is declared of the state. This test
incidental to the ordinary includes considerations
governmental functions, it such as the financial
would be exempted from resources of the state
taxation. being the main source of
funding, deep and
pervasive control by the
state, a governmental
character of functions,
transfer of a government
department to a
corporation, and the
conferment or protection
of “monopoly status” by
the state.

3) In the case of West

Bengal v Union of India,
The matter was
adjudicated with respect to
whether the centre could
take into acquisition those
lands bearing coal in the
State territories exercising
power under the Coal
Bearing Areas Act of 1957.
 The court rules in favour of
the union. The court
rejected the Doctrine of
Immunity in this case and
stated that such power
was only subject to
express prohibition.

4) In the case of In Re Sea

Customs Act, the
question that the court
dealt with was whether the
exemption of state would
extend to imports and
manufactures of the state
from customs of the
centre. The court held that
such exemption was not
extended and held that,
“The duties of customs,
held by the court, were not
a tax on property but an
impost on imports which
formed an essential aspect
of the Central power to
regulate foreign trade.
Similarly, excise is not a
tax on property but on the
process of manufacture
and production.”

5) In the case of Andhra

Pradesh State RT
Corporation v Income
Tax Officer, it was held
that, “a corporation had a
personality of its own,
distinct from its
shareholders and so also
from its creator, the state.
Therefore, the income
derived by a corporation
could not be regarded as
the income of the state,
and the constitutional
provision exempting State
income from Central-
taxation could not be
extended to grant an
exemption to the income
of a corporation. It made
no difference that under
the relevant law the
corporation was required
 to turn over a part of its
income to the state to be
spent on road
development, as this did
not render the
corporation’s income as
that of the state.”

5 Doctrine Doctrine of Incidental or The provisions of the 1) In R M D Charbaugwala Nevertheless, if a subject is

. of Ancillary Powers implies that Constitution that reflect the v. State of Mysore explicitly mentioned in a
Incident the power to legislate on a power to make law on (1962 AIR (SC) 594), Union or State List, it cannot
al and particular issue also includes incidental matters: Supreme Court held that be said to be an ancillary
ancillary the power to legislate on wagering and betting is a matter.
powers ancillary matters that are ⮚ Article 4 provides the state subject as referenced
reasonably connected to that power to make law on in the entry 34 of the State
issue or subject. matters supplemental, list however it doesn’t
incidental, and include power to impose
consequential to the law taxes on wagering and
providing for adding of betting because it exists as
states under Article 2 and a separate item in the
3. same list as mentioned in
⮚ Article 110 and 199 entry 62.
define money bill for both 2) In R. D. Joshi v. Ajit Mills
the Union and the States. (1977), the question
It includes “any matter raised was whether the
incidental to any of the State legislature had the
matters specified in sub- authority to adopt a
clauses (a) to (f)” of the statute allowing it to forfeit
respective articles. the sales tax received by
⮚ Article 145 provides the dealers. The Court ruled
power to the Supreme that this was a punitive
Court to make “rules as to measure to ensure that
the costs of and incidental social policy was properly
to any proceedings in the and effectively enforced. It
Court and as to the fees to further said that the
be charged in respect of entries must be given a
proceedings therein”. broad interpretation in
⮚ Article 169 provides for order to include ancillary
the abolition or creation of and incidental capabilities.
Legislative Councils in
States. This article 3) In the case of United
includes the power to Provinces v Atiqa
make rules “as may be Begum & Others, AIR
necessary to give effect to 1941 FC 16, the principal
the provisions of the law question was whether the
and may also contain such regularization of the
supplemental, incidental Remission Act, 1938, an
and consequential Act of the Uttar Pradesh
provisions as Parliament legislature was valid. The
may deem necessary”. Court held that this Act
⮚ Article 239AAB was covered “within the
 empowers the President meaning of entry no. 21 of
to suspend any provision List II”. This case laid down
of Article 239AA and the way for the doctrine of
related provisions. It also ancillary or incidental
empowers him to “make powers in the Indian legal
such incidental and system. It clarifies that a
consequential provisions legislature has the power
as may appear to make law on matters
necessary”. which are ancillary or
⮚ Article 244A provides for incidental to the main
the formation of an matters of legislation and
autonomous State thus, are essential to fulfil
comprising certain tribal the object of the law.
areas in Assam and the
creation of local
Legislature or Council of
Ministers or both. It
empowers the Parliament
to make any “such
supplemental, incidental
and consequential
provisions as may be
deemed necessary.”
⮚ Article 289 provides for
the exemption of
property and income of
a State from Union
taxation. It empowers
the Parliament to
exempt trade
“incidental” to the
functioning of the
Government.
⮚ Article 315 provides for
the establishment of
Public Service
Commissions for the
Union and the States. It
provides for the law to
contain “any such
incidental and
consequential provisions
as may be necessary or
desirable for giving effect
to the purposes of the
law”.
⮚ Article 323A talks about
Administrative Tribunals.
It provides that any law
made under clause (1) of
this article may include
“such supplemental,
incidental and
consequential provisions
 (including provisions as to
fees) as Parliament may
deem necessary for the
effective functioning of,
and for the speedy
disposal of cases by, and
the enforcement of the
orders of, such tribunals”.
⮚ Article 323B talks of
Tribunals for other
matters. It empowers the
appropriate Legislature to
make law on “any matter
incidental to any of the
matters specified in sub-
clauses (a) to (i)” of this
article.
⮚ Article 339 provides for
the control of the Union
over the administration of
Scheduled Areas and the
welfare of Scheduled
Tribes. It empowers the
President to include in his
order “such incidental or
ancillary provisions” as he
deems necessary.
⮚ Article 356 provides for
the provisions in case of
failure of constitutional
machinery in States. It
empowers the President
by Proclamation to make
“such incidental and
consequential provisions
as appear to the President
to be necessary or
desirable for giving effect
to the objects of the
Proclamation.”
6 Doctrine The principle of unjust While there isn't a specific 1) In landmark case of ‘Doctrine of unjust
. of enrichment means that no constitutional provision Mafatlal Industries Ltd. enrichment’ not applicable to
Unjust one should be unjustly dealing directly with unjust v. Union of India (1996), fixed price contract, for refund
Enrichm enriched at the expense of enrichment, the principle it was established the the excess tax paid. [The
ent another. It also means that finds expression in various principle that when taxes Hon’ble HC, Gujarat in the
no person should take statutes and case laws. The are collected by the matter of State of Gujarat v.
advantage of the position of Constitution of India does, government contrary to Advanced Systek Private
another person which causes however, provide for the right law or without the Limited (R/Special Civil
some loss to one party and to equality and justice under authority of law, the Application No. 8391 of 2019
gain to another party. Article 14, which serves as a government is liable to dated July 24, 2020) -
broader constitutional refund the same to the dismissed the appeal
Unjust Enrichment under tax framework within which person from whom it is challenging the refund of
laws refers to a legal principles of unjust collected. excess tax deposited by the
principle that prevents enrichment can be interpreted Assessee and held that the
individuals or entities from and applied. 2) In the case, Union of Revenue department has to
benefiting unjustly or unfairly India v. Tata Chemicals refund the excess tax
at the expense of the tax Ltd. (2014), the Supreme deposited by the Assessee on
system. It applies when a Court held that the burden fixed price contract.]
taxpayer receives a refund or to prove unjust enrichment
tax benefit that they are not lies on the revenue
entitled to, either due to department. It emphasized
error, misrepresentation, or that a taxpayer should not
non-compliance with tax be denied the refund of tax
laws. Tax authorities have collected without authority
mechanisms in place to of law merely on the
identify and rectify cases of ground that he has passed
unjust enrichment, ensuring on the burden to another
that taxpayers do not retain person.
undue financial advantages.
Unjust Enrichment provisions 3) The case, Collector of
serve to maintain fairness, Central Excise v. Dai
integrity, and compliance Ichi Karkaria Ltd. (1989)
within the tax system, and highlighted that the
non-compliance can result in principle of unjust
penalties, interest, or legal enrichment applies not
consequences. only to direct taxes but
also to indirect taxes like
excise duty. It ruled that
the burden to prove that
the burden of the duty had
not been passed on to
another person lies on the
taxpayer claiming the
refund.
7 Doctrine This Doctrine of Severability Article 13 of Constitution of 1) In R.M.D.C. v. Union of Limitation in Enforcement of
. of is also known as the Doctrine India reads as under: India (1983), the the Doctrine:
Severabi of Separability. The Doctrine All laws enforce in India, Supreme Court of India
lity of Severability means that before the commencement of upheld the validity of the The 24th Amendment of the
when some particular Constitution of India, in so far Wealth Tax Act, 1957, Constitution of India by Ms
provision of a statute offends as they are inconsistent with while striking down certain Indira Gandhi during1971
or is against a constitutional the provisions of fundamental provisions related to added the clause (4) of Article
limitation, but that provision rights shall to the extent of valuation. The court 13, that says:
is severable from the rest of that inconsistency be void. applied the doctrine of
the statute, only that severability to retain the “Nothing in this Article shall
offending provision will be The pressing aspect of the constitutionally valid parts apply to any amendment of
declared void by the Court aforementioned clause must of the law. this Constitution made under
and not the entire statute. be explained with clarity. Article 368.”
Applies primarily to post- When a particular part of a
constitutional laws. statute bounce beyond the Though the Article 13 (4) gave
fundamental rights of the birth to a landmark doctrine of
Constitution of India, the very basic structure to our
part of the statute/Act would constitution moreover it
be declared void provided prohibits the parliament to
that, the unconstitutional part make laws or amendments
of the statute/law is which are inconsistent to the
separable. But, if the fundamental rights.
unconstitutional part of the
statute is inseparable, then
the entire statue would be
held void. Hence, severability
finds its significant place while
invalidating an
unconstitutional portion of a
statute.

The Doctrine of Severability

applicable only to post-
constitutional laws, which is
expressly mentioned in
Article 13 (2) mandates the
State that it shall not make
any law which takes away or
abridges the fundamental
rights conferred in Part III of
Constitution of India and any
law contraventions this clause
shall be void.
8 Doctrine According to the Doctrine of No particular provision deals 1) Basheshar Nath v. Since the doctrine involves
. of Waiver, a person with this doctrine. Income Tax relinquishing the rights of an
Wavier intentionally gives up his Commissioner (1959). individual, it is restricted by
right or privilege or chooses Facts- certain conditions or
not to exercise his right or The appellant had filed a limitations to prevent misuse
privilege which are conferred special leave petition and protect the interests of
on him by the state. It is the challenging the validity of the citizens.
intentional or voluntary agreement made by him under
relinquishment of a known Section 8A of the Taxation of ● Firstly, it is necessary
right. Income Act. He contended that that the waiver be
Section 5(1) of the Taxation of exercised wilfully or
Income Tax Act (on which voluntarily. There should
Section 8A of the same Act had be no coercion, force,
been founded) was declared duress, undue influence,
void by the court and hence etc. involved in the
his property should be decision-making.If the
released. However, he was decision is not made
informed by the Commissioner voluntarily, the waiver will
of Income Tax (CIT) that the be invalid.
agreement was in fact valid ● Secondly, the
and he was required to pay the individual must have
money due by him. The complete knowledge of
respondents argued that the the consequences of
appellant had waived off his the waiver.
fundamental rights by willingly ● Finally, the doctrine of
entering into the agreement, waiver does not extend
and therefore its validity could to fundamental rights.
not be challenged by him. To put it simply, an
Issues involved - individual cannot give up
The Supreme Court, in this or waive the fundamental
case, ruled on the rights guaranteed to them
constitutional validity of the under Part III of the
waiver of fundamental rights. Constitution.
It also looked into whether the
settlement made under
Section 8A of the Taxation of
Income Act was valid.
However, this judgement was
the landmark decision where
the court ruled on whether a
fundamental right guaranteed
by the Constitution could be
waived or not.

Judgement and
observations made by the
court-
The majority decision, in this
case, stated that Article 14 of
the Constitution seemed to be
a direction to the State to
ensure equality rather than the
right of an individual.
Therefore, it was held by the
court that no citizen can waive
or give up the fundamental
rights mentioned under Article
14.

The Court further held that it

was not just Article 14, but this
extended to all the
fundamental rights granted by
the Constitution, and none of
them could be waived by an
individual. The judges
observed that the Indian
Constitution did not
discriminate between
fundamental rights passed in
the individual’s interest and
those passed for the public’s
benefit. It was thus reasoned
that there was no basis for us
to blindly copy the American
laws and its interpretation of
the doctrine of waiver.

Justice S.K. Das delivered the

dissenting judgement in this
case. Since the preambles of
the Indian and American
Constitutions contained
nothing to make the doctrine
of waiver applicable to one and
not the other, he was of the
opinion that fundamental
rights could be subject to
waiver by an individual. He
stated that as the doctrine of
waiver applied to
constitutional rights in
America, there was no reason
it shouldn’t apply to the
fundamental rights of India.
9 Doctrine ● The doctrine of eclipse ⮚ This doctrine is related to 1) In Mahendra Lai Jaini v Article 13(4) states that Article
. of under the Indian Article 13 of the Indian State of Uttar Pradesh 13 does not apply to
Eclipse Constitution refers to the Constitution which talks (1963), it was constitutional amendments.
principle that a law, about laws inconsistent authoritatively established
which was inconsistent with or in derogation of that the doctrine of eclipse Though the Article 13 (4) gave
with or in violation of fundamental rights. did not apply to post- birth to a landmark doctrine of
fundamental rights at the Article 13(1) states that any Constitutional laws and the basic structure to our
time of its enactment(a law which was made before latter could not be constitution moreover it
law existed prior to the the commencement of the automatically revived by prohibits the parliament to
adoption of the Indian constitution must be Constitutional make laws or amendments
Constitution in 1950), consistent with the part III of amendments. Thus, the which are inconsistent to the
continues to exist in a the Indian Constitution. impugned act would fundamental rights.
dormant or eclipsed state become void ab initio if its
after the enactment of If any statue which is contravention of any
the Constitution. inconsistence with the fundamental right as is
provisions provided under given in Article 13(2).
● Such a law becomes part III of the Indian
unenforceable until and constitution such statue shall
unless it is brought back become void up to that
into force by subsequent inconsistency. At the same
constitutional time such statue shall not be
amendments.Its applies treated as dead but will be in
only to the pre- the moribund condition until
constitutional era and unless it is abolished by
the Parliament.
● However, if the law is
amended or modified in
such a way that it no
longer contradicts the
fundamental rights, it can
be brought out of eclipse
and become enforceable
again.
1 Doctrine ● The Doctrine of Occupied ⮚ Article 246 1) In the State of Bombay ⮚ Article 254 of the
0 of Field is a legal principle v. the United Motors Constitution of India states
. Occupie that deals with the (1) Parliament has (India) Ltd. (1953), the the provisions and
d Field distribution of powers to exclusive power to make laws respondent was involved in measures regarding
the government at with respect to any of the selling motor vehicles in inconsistency between
different levels within a matters enumerated in List I the state of Bombay (now laws made by Parliament
federal system. in the Seventh Schedule Maharashtra). The state and laws made by the
(“Union List”). government imposed a tax State Legislatures.
● It essentially means that on the sale of motor
if a particular subject (2) The Parliament and vehicles, arguing it was ⮚ It addresses the
matter or field is Legislature of any State have distinct from the central relationship between
exclusively occupied by power to make laws with government’s taxation on Union and state laws on
legislation at one level of respect to any of the matters the sale of goods. The concurrent list subjects by
government, i.e., either enumerated in List III in the central issue was whether providing a framework for
Union or state, then the Seventh the state’s tax conflicted resolving conflicts by
other level of Schedule (“Concurrent List”). with the central giving precedence to
government cannot government’s power to tax Union laws if they have
legislate on the same (3)Subject to clauses (1) and the sale of goods under the received the President’s
subject matter. (2), the Legislature of Central Sales Tax Act, approval.
any State has exclusive power 1956, leading to a dispute
● The doctrine of occupied to make laws for such State or over the occupied field This Article express that when
field provides that if an any part thereof with respect doctrine. The central issue there is a disagreement
Act of the Parliament to any of the matters before the court was between a law passed by the
occupies a subject over enumerated in List II in the whether the state national or central
which the State Seventh Schedule (“State government had the power government and a law passed
Legislature is also List”). to levy a tax on the sale of by a state government, and
empowered to legislate motor vehicles and, if so, both laws are related to
and has also legislated (4) Parliament has power to whether it conflicted with subjects listed in the
and the State’s make laws with respect the central government’s Concurrent List of the
Legislation obstructs the to any matter for any part of power to tax the sale of Constitution, the national law
operation of the the territory of India not goods under the Central usually prevails.
Parliament’s Act, then included 2 [in a State] Sales Tax Act, 1956. It was
the State’s Legislation is notwithstanding that such held by the Supreme Court
inconsistent with the matter is a matter that the field of taxation on
Parliament’s Act to the enumerated in the State List. the sale of goods was
extent of the provision/s occupied by the central
which obstruct the government, and thus,
latter’s operation. imposing tax on the sale of
goods by the state
● This doctrine helps avoid government was declared
conflicts and overlaps in unconstitutional.
legislative authority.
2) In State of Kerala & Ors
● Essentials of doctrine of v. M/S. Mar Appraem
occupied field: Kuri Co.Ltd. & Anr., The
a. Enumerated powers- Centre enacted the Chit
The Constitution must specify Funds Act (Central Act).
and distinguish the powers For the Law to become
and responsibilities of each operative in any State, the
level of both the state and Central Government would
the central government. In have to issue a notification
the absence of a specific under Section 3 of the
distribution of powers, the Central Act. In the
doctrine may not apply. meantime, the State of
 Kerala enacted a separate
b. Exclusive legislation- act on “Chit Funds” called
The doctrine comes into play as Kerala Chitties Act.
when a particular field or However, the Central Act
subject matter falls within did not get notified in
the exclusive legislative Kerala resulting into a
competence of one level of situation wherein there
government, which means was only one Act in force in
that the other level of the State of Kerala i.e. the
government cannot legislate Kerala Chitties Act. It was
on that subject matter. contended that the Kerala
Chitties Act was repugnant
c. Intent of the Constitution- to the un-Notified Central
The doctrine is often based Act. The Supreme Court
on the intent of the held that even an un-
Constitution. If it is clear that notified Central law
the constitution intended for attracts art 254.
one level of government to
have exclusive authority over
a particular field, the doctrine
applies. It means that if the
Constitution empowers either
the central or state
government to make laws in
a particular field and the
other government tries to
interfere in making laws in
that particular field, the
doctrine of occupied field
applies.