Meaning of Doctrine of Pith and Substance

The term “pith” refers to the essence or true nature of a thing, while “substance” signifies its
most significant or fundamental element. Together, the doctrine enables courts to ascertain the
real purpose and character of a law, even when it intersects with subjects outside its
jurisdiction.

The Doctrine of Pith and Substance is particularly significant in federal systems such as those of
India, Canada, and Australia, where legislative powers are allocated to different levels of
government. It ensures that laws are not declared invalid solely because they incidentally affect
matters outside their primary domain.

Conditions for Application of the Doctrine of Pith and Substance

The Doctrine of Pith and Substance applies in situations where the legislative authority of a law
is in question due to jurisdictional overlaps or ambiguities. For the doctrine to be invoked
effectively, certain conditions and elements must be fulfilled:

Major Components that Constitute the Doctrine of Pith and Substance

The major components that constitute the doctrine of pith and substance are:

1. The true nature or character of the law

This is the most important component of the doctrine. It refers to the essential purpose or
object of the law.

2. The incidental encroachment of the law on another subject

A law may incidentally encroach on a subject that is within the legislative competence of
another legislature. If the incidental encroachment is not substantial, the law will still be
considered to be within the legislative competence of the legislature that enacted it.

3. The distribution of legislative powers between the central government and the state
governments in India

The doctrine of pith and substance is particularly important in India. Here, the legislative powers
are divided between the central government and the state governments. The doctrine
determines whether a particular law falls within the legislative competence of the central
government or the state governments.

Salient Features of Doctrine of Pith and Substance

o Situations in which the doctrine is used:- It is used when the subject of the first list
appears to contradict the subject of the second list.

o Reasons for Adoption of Doctrine:- The theory was adopted to avoid any limitations on
legislatures’ powers by calling every other legislation unlawful because it infringes on
another statute.
 o Genuine nature and character:- The doctrine is recognised for examining a subject’s true
nature and character in order to determine where it belongs on the list.

o Provision for a degree of flexibility:- It considers whether the state has the authority to
enact legislation involving a subject listed in the constitution’s Union list.

o The first judgment upheld the doctrine in India:- The doctrine was first invoked in India
in the case of State of Bombay v. FN Balsara, and the doctrine was supported in that
case.

Need for the doctrine of pith and substance in India

1. One of the key reasons for the doctrine’s adoption and use in India was to give flexibility
to an otherwise inflexible framework for power allocation under a federal structure.

2. Another important ground establishing a need for the doctrine in India is that if every
legislation were to be declared invalid on the ground that it encroached on the subject
of another legislature, then these powers assigned to the legislature would be
enormously restrictive, and this would not serve the purpose of the power being
granted to the legislature.

State of Bombay and Another v. F.N. Balsara (1951)

Background and Facts:

• The Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949, was enacted to implement total prohibition of the
manufacture, sale, possession, and consumption of intoxicating liquors in the State of
Bombay (now part of Maharashtra).

• The Act was inspired by Article 47 of the Indian Constitution (Directive Principles of
State Policy), which directs the state to work towards the prohibition of intoxicating
drinks harmful to health.

• F.N. Balsara, a Parsi resident of Bombay and a citizen of India, challenged various
provisions of the Act on the grounds that they infringed his Fundamental Rights under
the Constitution.

Legal Issue:

• Whether the Act, while dealing with prohibition, encroached upon the Union List and
was thus ultra vires the powers of the State legislature.

• Did the Act violate the Fundamental Rights of the petitioner under Articles 14, 19, and
21?

Observations of the Supreme Court of India

1. Under List II, Entry 31 of the Indian Constitution, the state legislature has the authority
to entirely outlaw the keeping, marketing, and use of intoxicating wine. As a result,
 there is no issue about the state’s and the centre’s jurisdictions clashing with each other
in this regard.

2. The Apex Court viewed that any act passed by the state legislature that prohibits or
restricts the export of the items listed in Entries 27 and 29 of List II outside the state’s
borders is illegal. However, because this Act was approved under List II Entry 31, Section
297(1)(a) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 does not apply to it. As a result, the
exemption granted to Army men, Land Forces messes, and Water Ships cannot be ruled
unconstitutional under Section 37 of the aforementioned Act.

3. The Supreme Court ruled that the portions of the Bombay Prohibition Act that dealt with
maintaining alcohol-mixed medications and toilet products, selling and buying them, as
well as using them, were unconstitutional under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, but
the remainder of the provisions were upheld to be valid. It was also established that an
Act cannot be deemed entirely invalid simply by declaring any of its sections to be illegal.

4. The Apex Court had also stated that under Article 277 of the Constitution, any taxes,
duties, cesses, or fees that were lawfully levied by the government of any State or
municipality or other local authority or body for the purpose of the state, municipality,
district, or another local area immediately before the commencement of the
Constitution may continue to be levied and applied for the same purpose until
provisions to the contrary are made by Parliament by law. Thus the legal principle that
has been established provides that if the state government has adopted an Act on a
topic over which it has constitutional authority, the Act is valid.

State of Rajasthan v. G. Chawla & Another (1959)

Background and Facts:

• The Rajasthan Sound Control Act, 1951 was enacted to control noise pollution caused by
loudspeakers and sound amplifiers.

• The Act required individuals to seek prior permission from the District Magistrate before
using amplifiers in public spaces.

• G. Chawla, a resident of Rajasthan, was prosecuted under the Act for using a
loudspeaker without such permission.

• He challenged the constitutionality of the Act, claiming that it violated his fundamental
right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

Legal Issues Involved:

1. Does the use of a loudspeaker come within the ambit of Article 19(1)(a) – i.e., the right
to freedom of speech and expression?

2. Is the Rajasthan Sound Control Act, 1951 constitutionally valid?

3. Does the State Legislature have the competence to enact such a law?

Supreme Court’s observation

The Apex Court observed that even though the amplifier is a broadcasting and
communication apparatus, it did not fall under Entry 31 of List I because the legislation was
a state matter in its essence and was not held invalid even if it encroached on the subject of
broadcasting and communication by accident.

State of Karnataka v. Drive-In Enterprises (2001)

The imposition of tax on ‘drive-in-cinemas’ was at issue in State of Karnataka v. Drive-In

Enterprises (2001). A drive-in cinema is an open-air theatre premise in which entrance is
generally granted to people who want to see the movie while sitting in their automobiles.
The state assessed an entertainment tax on automobiles entering the theatre, in addition to
collecting an entertainment tax on those being entertained. The dispute arose as to whether
the state legislature has the authority to adopt legislation imposing a tax on entry of
cars/motor vehicles within such theatres under Entry 62, List II of the 7th Schedule or not. It
is to be noted that the state legislature has the authority to charge a tax on ‘luxuries,
entertainment, amusements, betting, and gaming,’ according to Entry 62.

Observations by the Apex Court

1. The Supreme Court stated that what must be determined is the true character of the
levy, its essence and content and that it is in this light that the state legislature’s
competence must be assessed. The doctrine of pith and substance states that
enactment cannot be held ultra vires simply because its nomenclature indicates that it
encroaches on matters assigned to another heading of legislation if it substantially falls
within the powers expressly conferred on the legislature by the Indian Constitution.

2. The Court further observed that the true nature and character of the contested tax, in
this case, is not on the entrance of cars/motor vehicles, but on the person amused who
 drives their automobile into the theatre and watches the movie from their car. In
essence, the tax is placed on the person who is entertained, and it makes no difference
under whichever name or forms it is enforced. The term ‘entertainment’ is broad
enough to encompass the luxury or comfort with which one entertains oneself. The levy
is justified and lawful if a link between legislative competence and the subject matter of
taxes is established.

3. Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. and Others v. the State Of U.P. and Ors.

Background and Facts:

• The petitioners, including Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd., were engaged in the
manufacture of industrial alcohol (denatured spirit) which is not fit for human
consumption.

• Several States, including U.P., had imposed excise duties, fees, and restrictions on the
manufacture and sale of industrial alcohol, claiming power under Entry 8 and Entry 51
of List II (State List).

• The manufacturers challenged these impositions, arguing that:

o Industrial alcohol is used for industrial purposes (not potable), and

o The State has no legislative competence to regulate or tax it under Entry 8

(intoxicating liquors).

Legal Issues:

1. Whether the State legislatures have the power to impose excise duty or regulate
industrial alcohol (non-potable)?
2. Whether the States can claim authority under Entry 8 and 51 of the State List to levy
duties on denatured alcohol?

3. Does the Doctrine of Occupied Field apply – i.e., whether the Central law (Industrial
Development and Regulation Act, 1951) occupied the entire field of industrial alcohol
regulation?

Arguments by Petitioners (Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd.):

• The production and regulation of industrial alcohol is governed by Central legislation,

especially the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 (IDRA).

• States have no power to regulate or tax industrial alcohol as it is not an “intoxicating

liquor” and not fit for human consumption.

• Therefore, the field is occupied by the Union, and States' imposition of duties/fees is
unconstitutional.

• This decision was made on the grounds that there could not be a full restriction of
therapeutic remedies including alcohol. As a result, it was argued that in the case of
alcohol that is unfit for human consumption, commerce in such an object cannot be
regarded as a noxious trade. Only when it is produced or processed for human use will it
be a toxic trade.

• The reasoning provided in the FN Balsara’s case was followed here. As alcohol is counted
under luxurious goods, the state legislature will have to collect taxes on the ownership
of alcoholic liquors suited for human consumption. However, because alcohol that is
unfit for human consumption is not a luxury, state legislatures will not be able to charge
taxes on it, according to the learned Attorney General. It was held that all alcohol taxes
not covered by any other entries in Lists I and II will be levied by Parliament.