The majority view on the scope of Parliament's residuary powers is compatible with the

wording of the Constitution as well as the intentions of its authors. This view indicates a wide
and liberal approach to legislative power allocation in favour of the central government. The
Indian Constitution established a distinct style of federalism that intentionally favours the
central government in both administrative and legislative functions, with Parliament having a
prominent role in legislative concerns. Article 248 expressly specifies that Parliament has
jurisdiction over “any matter not enumerated in the Concurrent List or State List,” implying
that even if an item is excluded from List I, it is still subject to Parliament's residuary powers.
The minority view, on the other hand, stressed the term “other” in the phrase “any other
matter,” interpreting it to suggest that residuary powers could only be exercised in topics not
stated in List I, as well as matters not included in the concurrent or state lists. Legislative
entries, it has been found, do not give powers, but rather specify areas of authority. The
framers' intentions, as indicated by arguments in the Constituent Assembly, reaffirm the
interpretation of Article 248. Dr Ambedkar noted that the goal of Draft Constitution Entry 91
was to clarify the extent of List I, and that the thorough listing of items in the Union List was
designed to ease worries about the scope of Union powers.
Additionally, it could not have been the purpose of the Constitution's authors to leave certain
issues without legislative authority for a sovereign democratic republic in which neither the
Union nor the States had legislative authority. After determining that the Wealth Tax Act
could not lawfully come within the purview of jurisdiction of the states under Entry 49 of the
State List, the majority opinion reasoned that this would result in a “power vacuum” for both
the Union and state legislatures on the subject of wealth tax on agricultural assets. Parliament
or state legislatures have control over every legislative subject.
Apart from the dialectical issue, the majority ruling illustrates the Court's understanding of
the political, economic, and social consequences of the issues at hand. The majority of judges
rightly recognised that the legislative difficulties demanding the exercise of Parliament's
powers were not founded on arbitrary assumptions, but on the presence of facts and
circumstances necessitating action. The fundamental goal of wealth tax legislation is to
progressively diminish wealth concentration and existing levels of wealth disparity. Due to
the states' political reluctance to tax the agricultural sector, Parliament introduced the
programme of levying wealth tax on agricultural assets, and this risky experiment required
judicial backing, which the majority supplied in this ruling. The move has the immediate
impact of providing income to the Union exchequer, and the eventual purpose is to lessen
wealth disparity in rural regions to some extent.
When it comes to legislation, particularly with regard to the constitution, the courts typically
have a lot of leeway. This enables the interpretation of words and phrases in the constitution
to include unanticipated events. This complicates constitutional interpretation since old terms
must be attributed to new uses in order to adjust to changing social realities. Judges must
develop community policies in a larger sense, which frequently entails policy concerns
including political, economic, and social difficulties. As a result, courts must rely on extra-
legal elements in addition to the text of the constitution to provide meaning to the text. This
approach is required in constitutional cases in the interest of keeping the constitution flexible
and relevant through constitutional interpretation. Constitutions should not be regarded in
isolation as a benchmark for other laws, but as dynamic and living instruments of
government.