CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW

UNIVERSITY
NYAYA NAGAR, MITHAPUR, PATNA – 800001

FEBRUARY, 2022

RESEARCH PROPOSAL SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF COURSE

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-II
ON
A CRITIQUE OF HARI KRISHNA BHARGAVA V UNION OF INDIA

Proposal submitted by:

Supriya Gupta
Course: B.A., LL.B. (Hons.)
Semester – 6th
Roll no. – 2168
Session – 2019-2024
Proposal Submitted to:
Prof. Dr. Anirudh Prasad
Professor of Law
INTRODUCTION:
The distribution of powers is an essential feature of the federalism. The object for which a
federal state is formed involves a division of authority between the Central Government and
the separate states. List I, II and III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution give the
bifurcation of powers between the Union and the State Government. The function of these
lists is not to confer powers, they merely demarcate the legislative field.
In Hari Krishna Bhargava v. Union of India, the provisions of the Income tax act 1961,
relating to annuity deposits were incorporate challenged in the Supreme Court on the ground
that the Parliament had no authority to incorporate in the Income Tax Act what is a substance
was borrowing by the Government from the tax-payers. Upholding the validity of the
impugned provisions, the Court held that under Article 246 read with Entry 82 of List I, the
Parliament had the power to levy tax on income other than agricultural income.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES:

1. To understand the significance of the judgement of Hari Krishna Bhargava v Union of
India.
2. To elucidate upon the brief facts of the case along with the issues, arguments and the
court’s views.
3. To study about the residuary powers of the Centre.

HYPOTHESIS:
The constitutional bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the parliament can enact a
single statute in matters which call for exercise of powers under two or more entries in the list
I of Seventh Schedule.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY:
In this project, doctrinal method will be used. Doctrinal methods refer to research or
processes done upon some texts writings, or documents, legal propositions and doctrines,
articles, books as well as online research and journals relating to the subject.

SOURCES OF STUDY:
1. Primary Sources: Case law, legal sources, bare acts, etc.
2. Secondary sources: Newspapers, journals, periodicals, etc.
TENTATIVE CHAPTERISATION:
1. INTRODUCTION
2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
3. ISSUES AND ARGUMENTS PUT FORWARD IN THE CASE
4. LEGAL ASPECTS
5. VIEW OF THE COURT
6. OVERIEW OF THE JUDGEMENT
7. SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS CASE AND SUBSEQUENT JUDGEMENTS
8. CONCLUSION
9. BIBLIOGRAPHY