The Doctrine of Pith and Substance in Constitutional Law

Key Takeaways:

• Doctrine of Pith and Substance
• Determining Legislative Competence
• Two-Step Test
• Maintaining Balance and Interpreting Laws

Introduction:

According to the Doctrine of Pith and Substance, legislation does not become illegal only because it has an effect on a matter outside the purview of a legislature if the substance of the legislation is within that body's legal jurisdiction. The word "pith and substance" means "true nature and character". This idea pertains to the violation of the constitutional limitations on the legislative authority of a Federal State. The Court utilizes it to decide whether the alleged intrusion is serious or merely accidental. The 'pith and substance' theory contends that the challenged statute is fundamentally within the legislative purview of the legislature that passed it but only incidentally intrudes into the purview of another legislature. The discussion of this idea in the current article focuses mostly on how the Indian Constitution has interpreted it.

The notion of pith and substance was inspired by the Canadian Constitution. The Dominion and the Provinces are the two sections of the country of Canada. The creators of the Canadian Constitution introduced two distinct lists to the Constitution in order to split the powers of the Dominions and Provinces. The British North America Act, which was initially passed in 1857 and became Section 69 of the Canadian Constitution, distinguished between the powers granted to the Dominion and those granted to the Provinces. The exclusive rights of the Dominions and Provinces are further defined in Sections 91 and 92 of the Constitution Act of 1867.

The doctrine of pith and substance is a fundamental principle used in both Canadian and Indian constitutional law to determine the true essence and character of legislation. It allows courts to look beyond the form of a law and focus on its purpose and effect.The application of the doctrine involves a two-step test. First, the court examines the purpose and effect of the law to determine its true character or essence. Second, based on this assessment, the court determines which level of government has legislative competence over that character.

Application and Interpretation of the Doctrine:

In situations where there is a disagreement about the legislative authority of the federal and state governments, the doctrine of pith and substance is used. This theory is used by Indian courts to evaluate whether a legislation principally comes under the concurrent jurisdiction of both the central and state governments, the exclusive authority of the central government, or neither.

A two-step procedure is used to evaluate the substance and gist of legislation. To determine the true nature of the legislation, the court first looks at its intent and results. Based on the division of powers outlined in the Indian Constitution, the court then assesses which level of government has legislative authority over that character.

While "Pith" refers to something's true character or essence, "Substance" refers to its most significant or crucial component, to reduce the idea to its most fundamental connotations. According to the doctrine's interpretation, the state and union legislatures are made supreme within their respective domains and should not encroach on the space set aside for the other.

A fundamental query regarding the foundations on which legislative competence should be proven surfaced while analyzing the scope of the incursion. The Privy Council stepped in to save the day in Cushing v. Dupey (1880). According to the Privy Council's ruling, the "pith and substance" of an enactment must be taken into account when assessing whether it is within or outside the purview of the legislative powers granted to either the Dominion or the Province. This concept was adopted by the Privy Council.

India and The Doctrine:

The Government of India Act, 1935, and the current Constitution both incorporate the idea of pith and substance, also referred to as accidental intrusion, which is a creation of Canadian law. There are instances where legislation is passed using one of the Lists in the VII Schedule. In these situations, the concept of "pith and substance" is used to decide which legislature has the power to enact the relevant legislation.

In determining whether a law is legal even when it accidentally touches on a subject that is under the purview of another legislature, the court must take into account the law's authenticity and character as well as whether it fundamentally falls within the purview of the legislature that passed it. In general, the Parliament and state legislatures are expected to respect each other's jurisdictions and remain within their designated spheres. If not, the judiciary would deem the Act to be unconstitutional. In order to ascertain the genuine authority under which the aforementioned item of law falls, it will first apply the doctrine of pith and substance.

The Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, which is established in Article 246 of the Indian Constitution, addresses the division of power between the Union and the States. The Constitution's Article 246 specifies the powers of the Union and the states by grouping them into three lists: the Union List, the State List, and the Concurrent List. The notion of the separation of powers between the federal and state governments is established by the Indian Constitution.

Relevant Case Law:

In State of Rajasthan v. Vatan Medical and General Store (2001), it was determined that no central law, whether passed with regard to an entry in List I or List III, can affect the constitutionality of a state enactment once it is inside the four corners of a List-II (State List) item. The Court went on to say that Article 246 cannot be used to establish that the state legislature has the authority to adopt a bill once enactment is connected to Entry 8 in List II, or any other entry in List II for that matter.

In R. D. Joshi v. Ajit Mills (1977), the issue was The Court decided that this was a last resort to make sure social policy was applied correctly and successfully. Furthermore, it stated that in order to accommodate auxiliary and incidental capabilities, the entries must be given a broad meaning. In addition to the idea of pith and substance, there is also the doctrine of subsidiary or accidental intrusion.

In Assn. of Natural Gas v. Union of India and Ors. (2004), the Supreme Court of India made the observation that comprehending what would typically be recognized as "covered within that subject in legislative practice" as well as the practice of such State that had granted such power was important.

Conclusion:

The doctrine of "pith and substance" has come into play in a number of instances where the Center and the States have contested who has the right to pass legislation first. Several of the issues on the Union List are crucial since the Centre has more influence in India than the states under Article 249 of the Indian Constitution. States are only required to pass laws on issues that directly impact them. Even yet, there may be inconsistencies simply because one piece of legislation is related to another in some way. It is crucial that the courts fulfill their duties without making any mistakes.