Doctrine of Pith and

Substance
 Prafulla Kumar Mukherjee v. Bank of Commerce Ltd, AIR
1947 PC 28
• Facts: In Bengal, The Bengal Moneylender Act 1940 was passed for the greater
interest of the public and set a limit, and above which no money be collected by the
moneylenders except by using promissory notes.
• Even the rate of interest was limited, which was recoverable by the moneylenders.
The interest of loan was so limited that the moneylenders challenged the validity of
this Act.
• Entry 28 Federal legislature List under the Govt. of India Act 1935- Cheques, bills of
exchange, promissory notes and other like instruments.
• Entry 27 of the Provincial legislature list- Trade and commerce within the
province….money lending and money lenders.
• Issues-
• Constitutional validity of the Bengal Moneylenders Act was challenged enacted by the State
legislatures
• It was challenged on the ground that the Act was made in relation to the Promissory note
• Promissory note falls under the category of the Union List
Application of the Rule
• 1. Doctrine of Pith and Substance is also known as the Doctrine of
Predominant Purpose of true nature and character of law
• 2. The doctrine of Pith and Substance says that where the question
arises of determining whether a law relates to a subject which is
mentioned in one list or another, the court looks to the subject of the
matter.
• 3. Normally when a matter falls within one list, then the
encroachment by law on the other state makes it invalid.
• 4. The need for such a doctrine was required to provide a degree of
flexibility in the rigid scheme of distribution of powers.
Decision
• The SC held that the Pith and Substance Doctrine would apply. Pith
and substance of this Act is Money lending, and that is under the
state legislature, which is very well laid down, but the other aspect of
the Promissory note does not fall under state list, but in the Union list
• Now even the promissory note is not the state list but still SC upheld
the Act as they said that the objective of the Act is being achieved
and also the Act is laid down for the greater public interest.
• Even though the Act main subject is not about the promissory note
but rather money lending. Therefore, the Act is constitutional.
State of Rajasthan vs. G. Chawla AIR 1959 SC 544
• The State Legislature made a law restricting the usage of sound
amplifiers under the Ajmer (Sound Amplifiers Control) Act 1952.
• The respondent who had violated the impugned Act was prosecuted.
The Judicial Commissioner held the Act to be invalid and quashed the
conviction.
• On appeal to the SC, the state contended that the law was within the
legislative competence of the State since it fell under Entry 6 List II
“Public Health and Sanitation.”
• The respondent contended that the law fell under Entry 31 of the
Union List “Posts and Telegraphs, telephones, Wireless, Broadcasting
and other like forms of communication.”
Decision
• The SC held that the legislation in its pith and substance fell within
Entry 6. The power to legislate in relation to public health includes
the power the use of amplifiers as producers of loud noises when the
right of such user, by the disregard and the comfort and obligation to
the others, emerges as a manifest nuisance to them.
• The pith and substance of the impugned Act is the control of the use
of amplifiers in the interests of health and tranquility, and thus falls
substantially (if not wholly) within the powers conferred to preserve,
regulate and promote them and does not so fall within the entry in
the Union List, even though the amplifier, the use of which is
regulated and controlled is an apparatus for broadcasting or
communication.