The constitution of India is based on the principle of Federalism where the powers of making laws are divided between the Union Parliament and the state legislatures. This power is derived from the 7th schedule of the constitution which assigned specific subjects to the Union Parliament, state legislatures and both. These subjects are provided in three lists, namely the central list, state list, and concurrent list. The principle of Federalism provides that the Parliament cannot make laws on the subjects mentioned in the state list and vice-versa. This principle is a part of the basic structure doctrine, and all the laws must comply with the same. In this article, we will discuss thoroughly the origin, meaning, and features of the doctrine of pith and substance. Further, with the help of landmark judicial pronouncements, we will discuss its scope and relevance in the present times.
Though subjects are demarcated, many times it has been observed that both the Parliament and state legislatures have crossed their limits and made laws on the subject matter outside their jurisdiction. In that situation, it becomes important to decide to which list that particular law belongs. In simple words, the moot point is whether the legislature is capable of making a law on such a subject. Thus, to understand the true nature and character of legislation, the doctrine of pith and substance came into existence.
Table of Contents
Meaning of Pith and Substance
As per the Black Law Dictionary, the term ‘pith and substance’ means the ‘true nature or character’ of a law. This doctrine states that both the Parliament and state legislatures are supreme in their sphere, and they should not encroach upon the sphere of the other. In case of any dispute about the legitimate sphere, we need to look at the true nature or characteristics of the law to ascertain its true substance. This will help in determining the real nature of the law and the competency of the legislature.
For illustration – Health is a state subject on which only the state legislatures can make laws. However, the Parliament brought a medical bill. Now, the state legislature is opposing it on the ground that the bill is constitutionally invalid as this sphere of making law is dedicated to the state legislatures. Now, to resolve the dispute, the court will look into the true nature and substance of the bill to figure out whether the Parliament can make law on such a subject or not.
Origin of Doctrine of Pith and Substance
The doctrine of pith and substance has evolved from the Canadian Constitution, which is divided into 2 parts, namely the Dominion and the Provinces. In the Canadian Constitution, there are two different lists to decide the power of making laws. Section 69 of the Constitution divides the legislative power of the Dominion from the Provinces. In addition to that, Sections 91 and 92 define the exclusive legislative rights of both the organs of the government.
From the judicial point of view, the doctrine of pith and substance came into light from the case of Cushing vs Dupuy (1880) in Canada. In that case, it was held that the true nature of the bill shall be taken into consideration to decide any dispute relating to the power of making laws. In a nutshell, the court held that both the Dominion and the Provinces are supreme in their respective areas, but they shouldn’t cross their boundaries.
Inspired by the Canadian Constitution, our Constitution under Article 246 divided the scope of the legislative power of central and state legislatures into 3 lists. In case of any dispute, the court needs to look into the content of the law, and decide to which list the particular law belongs.
The object of Doctrine of Pith and Substance
The main objective of the doctrine of pith and substance was to prevent encroachment or intrusion of one legislative organ into the domain of another. This encroachment can be prevented by ascertaining the true content of the law to figure out which legislative organ (state legislatures or Parliament) possesses the legislative power to make law on such subject. While examining the content of the law, there will be two outcomes, which are as follows.
- If the substance of the law corresponds to the subject on which the legislature has the power to make laws, the enactment of the law will be perfectly valid;
- If the substance of the law doesn’t correspond to the subject or is outside the jurisdiction, it will result in partial or accidental encroachment in the domain of another organ. In that situation, the enacted will lose its constitutional validity.
Features of Doctrine of Pith and Substance
Some salient features of this doctrine are discussed below-
- This doctrine aims to prevent encroachment by one legislative organ into the domain of another. To ascertain the true nature of law, the content or the real substance must be given due consideration.
- This doctrine is essential as it keeps a check on the legislative powers of both the Parliament and state legislatures.
- This doctrine has a vast application, which can be applied to the power of framing regulations and other forms of delegated legislation.
- This doctrine provides flexibility in the power allocation system of our federal structure.
The Doctrine of Pith and Substance in the Indian Constitution
In India, this doctrine finds its emergence in the Government of India Act, of 1935, which is followed in our present constitution. To divide the legislative power and scope between Parliament and state legislatures, there are 3 lists in the seventh schedule. As per Article 246, the power of making laws is strictly confined to the subjects given in the lists. However, if any dispute emerges, this doctrine comes into play to decide which legislative authority has the power to enact the law.
The essence of this doctrine is that both the parliament and the state legislatures should confine themselves in their respective areas as set up in the 7th schedule. If they try to encroach, the court will apply the doctrine of pith and substance to identify the real power and competency to make law.
The doctrine of Ancillary or Incidental Encroachment
As per this doctrine, the legislature has the power to make laws on the ancillary or supplementary subjects. This doctrine has broadened the scope of legislative power as they can make laws on supplementary subjects in addition to the primary laws. Under this doctrine, all three lists of the constitution shall be given a liberal interpretation to extend the power of the legislature.
- Kartar Singh v. the State of Punjab (1961)
In this landmark case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India explained how the doctrine of pith and substance should be applied. This doctrine prevents unlawful encroachment in the law-making sphere by putting a restriction on making laws on the subjects falling outside the jurisdiction. If a dispute arises, the essence and the substance of the legislation must be determined. This doctrine plays a vital role in the adjudication of any question relating to the legislative powers.
Historical Context and Comparative Analysis
Evolution of Federalism in India
Federalism in India has a rich history that dates back to the Government of India Act, of 1935. This Act laid the foundation for the federal structure by dividing powers between the central government and provincial governments. After India gained independence in 1947, the framers of the Indian Constitution adopted this federal principle, recognizing the need for a balanced distribution of powers to ensure unity and integrity in a diverse nation.
The Indian Constitution, adopted in 1950, established a quasi-federal system. This system, though federal in structure, has a strong centralizing tendency. This was necessary to address the country’s unique challenges, including linguistic, cultural, and regional diversity. Over the years, the federal structure has evolved, responding to the changing political and social landscape. Key amendments and judicial interpretations have shaped the dynamics between the centre and the states, ensuring a flexible yet robust federal system.
Comparative Analysis with Other Federal Systems
USA
The United States operates a dual federal system where the federal and state governments have distinct areas of jurisdiction. The US Constitution explicitly enumerates the powers of the federal government, reserving all other powers to the states. This clear demarcation ensures a high degree of state autonomy.
Canada
Canada’s federal system, like India’s, is influenced by its colonial past. The Canadian Constitution Act, of 1867, divides powers between the federal and provincial governments. However, unlike India, Canada allows for greater provincial autonomy, particularly in areas like healthcare and education.
Australia
Australia follows a federal model similar to the US, with a clear division of powers between the federal and state governments. The Australian Constitution outlines the powers of the federal government, with residual powers resting with the states. This ensures a balanced distribution of authority.
Comparison with India
India’s federal system is unique due to its quasi-federal nature. Unlike the US and Australia, where state autonomy is pronounced, India’s central government has overriding powers, especially in emergencies. Canada’s influence is evident in India’s approach to accommodating diversity through regional autonomy. However, India’s centralizing tendencies ensure national unity, making its federalism distinctive.
Case Studies
Landmark Cases
Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala (1973)
This landmark case reaffirmed the doctrine of pith and substance. The Supreme Court emphasized examining the true nature of legislation to determine its validity. The case set a precedent for interpreting the constitutional distribution of powers.
State of West Bengal vs. Union of India (1963)
In this case, the Supreme Court applied the doctrine to resolve a dispute over the central government’s power to acquire land in a state. The court held that the substance of the law was within the central list, upholding its validity.
Recent Cases
Goods and Services Tax (GST) Implementation
The GST Act faced challenges from states arguing it encroached on their fiscal autonomy. The Supreme Court applied the doctrine of pith and substance to uphold the GST, emphasizing its role in creating a unified tax structure.
Farm Laws
The controversial farm laws enacted by the central government led to disputes about legislative competence. The Supreme Court examined the true nature of these laws, considering both central and state concerns, showcasing the doctrine’s contemporary relevance.
Practical Implications
For Policymakers
The doctrine of pith and substance guides policymakers in drafting legislation within their jurisdiction. It ensures that laws align with constitutional provisions, preventing overreach and maintaining the balance of power.
For Lawmakers
Lawmakers use this doctrine to navigate complex legislative landscapes. It helps them understand the boundaries of their authority, ensuring laws are constitutionally valid.
For the Judiciary
The judiciary relies on this doctrine to resolve disputes between central and state governments. It provides a framework for interpreting the true nature of legislation, ensuring fair adjudication.
Impact on Recent Legislation
Recent legislation like the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and farm laws illustrate the doctrine’s practical implications. Courts have used this doctrine to address challenges to these laws, maintaining the balance of federal power.
Controversies and Criticisms
Encroachment Concerns
Critics argue that the doctrine can lead to central dominance, undermining state autonomy. They point out instances where central laws encroach on state subjects, questioning the doctrine’s application.
Opposing Viewpoints
Some scholars advocate for a stricter interpretation of legislative lists to protect state rights. They argue that a more rigid approach would prevent the central government’s overreach, ensuring a true federal balance.
Judicial Overreach
There are concerns about judicial overreach in applying the doctrine. Critics suggest that courts sometimes interpret laws too broadly, blurring the lines of legislative competence.
Future Prospects
Evolving Legal Landscape
As India evolves, its federal structure may undergo significant changes. The doctrine of pith and substance will continue to play a crucial role in adapting to these changes, ensuring a balanced distribution of powers.
Potential Reforms
Future reforms could clarify legislative powers, reducing ambiguities and minimizing the need for judicial intervention. Amendments may focus on enhancing state autonomy while maintaining national unity.
Technology and Governance
Advancements in technology and changing governance models will impact the application of the doctrine. Legislators and courts will need to adapt to these changes, ensuring the doctrine remains relevant.
Strengthening Federalism
Ongoing debates about state rights and central powers will shape the future of federalism in India. The doctrine of pith and substance will be pivotal in maintaining the federal balance, addressing emerging challenges, and ensuring effective governance.
FAQs
What is the doctrine of pith and substance?
The doctrine of pith and substance determines the true nature or character of legislation to ascertain whether it falls within the jurisdiction of the central or state legislature.
Why is the doctrine of pith and substance important in Indian federalism?
It helps maintain the balance of power between the central and state governments by ensuring each legislative body operates within its constitutional limits.
Can you give an example of a case where this doctrine was applied?
In Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala (1973), the Supreme Court used this doctrine to examine the true nature of legislation and determine its constitutional validity.
Q: What are the criticisms of the doctrine of pith and substance?
Critics argue that the doctrine can lead to central dominance, undermine state autonomy, and result in judicial overreach in interpreting legislative competence.
Conclusion
The doctrine of pith and substance is an integral part of our constitution. As our constitution is based on the principle of federalism, the power of making laws between parliament and state legislatures is divided into 3 lists as provided under Schedule 7 of the constitution. The doctrine of pith and substance provides that both the parliament and the state legislature shall confine themselves to their respective spheres.
In case of any dispute, the court shall look into the real substance of the legislation to ascertain which organs of the government have the legislative power to make laws on such subject. Over the period, this doctrine has evolved and its scope has been widened through numerous judicial pronouncements. Nowadays, the doctrine of ancillary or supplementary legislation is also followed in the country.