Q.

5 Explain - Generalia specialibus non derogant, utres magis valeat quan pareat, expressum facit cessare tacitum Generalia specialibus non derogant Where there is a special provision specifically dealing with a subject, a general provision, howsoever widely worded must yield to the former. This principle is expressed by the maxim Generalia specialibus non derogant. The aforesaid rule of construction was applied by the Supreme Court in Venkataramana Devaru Vs State of Mysore, AIR 1958. In that case the Supreme Court applied the rule to resolve conflict between Article 25 (2)(b) and 26 (b) of the Constitution. It was held that the right of every religious denomination or any Section thereof to manage its own affairs in matter of religion is subject to a law made by a State providing for social welfare and reform or throwing open of Hindu religious institution of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus. Article 25. (1) Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion. (2) Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any existing law or prevent the State from making any law (a) regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political or other secular activity which may be associated with religious practice; (b) providing for social welfare and reform or the throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus. Article 26. Subject to public order, morality and health, every religious denomination or any section thereof shall have the right (a) to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes; (b) to manage its own affairs in matters of religion; (c) to own and acquire movable and immovable property; and (d) to administer such property in accordance with law. In State of Gujarat Vs. Ramji Bhai, AIR 1979 Supreme Court taking note of the principle observed as follows: Generalia Specialibus non derogant is a cardinal principle of interpretation. It means that the general provisions must always yield to the special provisions. Construed in accordance with this fundamental principle, the special class of unregistered dealer covered by Section 33 (6) must be taken to have been excluded from the purview of the general provisions in Section 35. Thus considered, it is clear that the case of an unregistered dealer who evades tax by committing the double default specified in Section 33(6), action can be taken only under that Section and not under Section 35. Thus, it is well settled that if a special provision is made on a certain matter, that matter is excluded from the general provision. In the event of conflict between a general and a special provision, the latter must prevail. Differently stated the principle is that general words in a Statute should not be held to repeal or rip up a specific provision upon a particular matter. A general rule though stated in wide terms must be taken to be not interfering with matters covered by a special provision.

In South India Corporation (P) Ltd. Vs Secretary, Board of Revenue, Trivendrum AIR 1964, it was held that the general provision under Article 372 of the Constitution regarding continuance of existing laws is subject to Article 277 of the Constitution, which is a special provision relating to taxes, duties, cesses or fees lawfully levied at the commencement of the Constitution. In this regard, the Supreme Court observed as follows:With this background let u now consider the following two questions raised before us: (i) whether Article 372 of the Constitution is subject to Article 277 thereof; and (ii) whether Article 372 is subject to Article 278 thereof. Article 372 is a general provision; and Article 277 is a special provision. It is settled law that special provision should be given effect to the extent of its scope, leaving the general provision to control cases where the special provision does not apply. The earlier discussion makes it abundantly clear that the constitution gives a separate treatment to the subject of finance and Article 277 saves the existing taxes etc. levied by states, if the conditions mentioned therein are complied with. While Article 372 saves all pre-Constitution valid laws, Article 277 is confined only to taxes, duties, cesses or fees lawfully levied immediately before the Constitution. Therefore, Article 372 cannot be construed in such a way as to enlarge the scope of the savings of taxes, duties, cesses or fees. To state it differently, Article 372 must be read subject to Article 277. We have already held that an agreement can be entered into between the Union and the States in terms of Article 278 abrogating or modifying the power preserved to the State under Article 277. In Gujarat State Co-operative Land Development Bank Vs P.R. Mankad, (1979), the Supreme Court applying the maxim generalia specialibus non-derogant held that a general provision must yield to the special provision. Lord Hobhouse inBarker Vs Edgar (1898) AC 749 opined that when the legislature had given its consent to a separate subject and made provision for it, the presumption is that a subsequent general enactment is not intended to interfere with the special provision unless it manifests that intention very clearly. Ut res magis valeat quam pereat Literal meaning - Such a construction is to be made that lets the thing have effect rather than let it fail. Aka Rule of Effectiveness. Avtar Singh vs State of Punjab, AIR 1955 SC 1107 166 - Appellant was convicted of theft of electricity under Section 39 of Electricity Act, 1990. He contented that the proceeding were illegal because they were not initiated by any of the persons as mandated by Section 50 of the act. It was held that under this principle, the requirement of Section 50 should be given effect. Corporation of Calcutta vs Liberty Cinema, AIR 1965 SC 661 170 Under a. 413 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951, no person shall without a license granted by the Corporation of Calcutta, keep open any cinema house for public amusement in Calcutta. Under s. 548(2), for every license under the Act, a fee may be charged at such rate as may from time to time be fixed by the Corporation. In 1948, the appellant (Corporation) fixed fees on the basis of annual valuation of the cinema house. The respondent, who was the owner and licensee of a cinema theater, had been paying

a license fee of Rs. 400 per year on that basis. In 1958, the appellant, by a Resolution, changed the basis of assessment of the fee. Under the new method the fee was to be assessed at rates prescribed per show according to the sanctioned seating capacity of the cinema house; and the respondent had to pay a fee of Rs. 6,000 per year. The respondent, therefore moved the High Court for the issue of a writ quashing the resolution and the application was allowed. In the appeal to the Supreme Court the appellant contended that (i) the levy was a tax and not a fee in return for services and (ii) s. 548(2) does not suffer from the vice of excessive delegation; While the respondent contended that (i) the levy was a fee in return for services to be rendered and not a tax, and as it was not commensurate with the costs incurred by the Corporation in providing the services, the levy was invalid; (ii) if s. 548 authorized the levy of a tax, as distinct from a fee in return for service rendered, it was invalid, as it amounted to an illegal delegation of legislative functions to the appellant to fix the amount of a tax without any guidance for the purpose and (iii) the levy was invalid as violating Art. 19(1) (f) and (g) of the Constitute. HELD (per Sarkar, Raghubar Dayal and Mudholkar JJ) : (i) The was not a fee but a tax. The word "fee" in s. 548 must be read as referring to a tax as any other reading would make the section invalid, and in interpreting a statute, it ought to be made valid if possible. expressum facit cessare tacitum That which is expressed makes that which is implied to cease (that is, supersedes it, or controls its effect). Thus, an implied covenant in a deed is in all cases controlled by an express covenant. Where a law sets down plainly its whole meaning the court is prevented from making it mean what the court pleases.

Q. What do you understand by Beneficial Construction? Explain the statement, "Beneficial construction is a tendency rather than a rule". A general rule of interpretation is that if a word used in a statute excludes certain cases in its common meaning, it should not be constrained unnecessarily to include those cases. An exception to this rule is that when the objectives of the statute are not met by excluding the cases, then the word may be interpreted extensively so as to include those cases. However, when a word is ambiguous i.e. if it has multiple meanings, which meaning should be understood by that word? This is the predicament that is resolved by the principle of Beneficial Construction. When a statute is meant for the benefit of a particular class, and if a word in the statute is capable of two meanings, one which would preserve the benefits and one which would not, then the meaning that preserves the benefit must be adopted. It is important to note that omissions will not be supplied by the court. Only when multiple meanings are possible, can the court pick the beneficial one. Thus, where the court has to choose between a wider mean that carries out the objective of the legislature better and a narrow meaning, then it usually chooses the former. Similarly, when the language used by the legislature fails to achieve the

objective of a statute, an extended meaning could be given to it to achieve that objective, if the language is fairly susceptible to the extended meaning. This is quite evident in the case of B Shah vs Presiding Officer, AIR 1978, where Section 5 of Maternity Benefits Act, 1961 was is question, where an expectant mother could take 12 weeks of maternity leave on full salary. In this case, a women who used to work 6 days a week was paid for only 6x12=72 days instead of 7x12=84 days. SC held that the words 12 weeks were capable of two meanings and one meaning was beneficial to the woman. Since it is a beneficial legislation, the meaning that gives more benefit to the woman must be used. It is said by MAXWELL, that Beneficial Construction is a tendency and not a rule. The reason is that this principle is based on human tendency to be fair, accommodating, and just. Instead of restricting the people from getting the benefit of the statute, Court tends to include as many classes as it can while remaining faithful to the wordings of the statute. For example, in the case of Alembic Chemical Works vs Workmen AIR 1961, an industrial tribunal awarded more number of paid leaves to the workers than what Section 79(1) of Factories Act recommended. This was challenged by the appellant. SC held that the enactment being a welfare legislation for the workers, it had to be beneficially constructed in the favor of worker and thus, if the words are capable of two meanings, the one that gives benefit to the workers must be used. Similarly, in U Unichoyi vs State of Kerala, 1963, the question was whether setting of a minimum wage through Minimum Wages Act, 1948 is violative of Article 19 (1) (g) of the constitution because the act did not define what is minimum wage and did not take into account the capacity of the employer to pay. It was held that the act is a beneficial legislation and it must be construed in favor of the worker. In an under developed country where unemployment is rampant, it is possible that workers may become ready to work for extremely low wages but that should not happen. Q. What do you understand by Strict Construction? If there is an ambiguity in a word in a penal statute, what interpretation should be given and why? Explain why a taxing statute should be strictly constructed? Strict Construction Strict construction refers to a particular legal philosophy of judicial interpretation that limits or restricts judicial interpretation. Strict construction requires the court to apply the text as it is written and no further, once the meaning of the text has been ascertained. That is, court should avoid drawing inference from a statute or constitution. It is important to note that court may make a construction only if the language is ambiguous or unclear. If the language is plain and clear, a judge must apply the plain meaning of the language and cannot consider other evidence that would change the meaning. If, however, the court finds that the words produce absurdity, ambiguity, or a literalness never intended, the plain meaning does not apply and a construction may be made. Strict construction occurs when ambiguous language is given its exact and technical meaning, and no other equitable considerations or reasonable implications are made. Strict construction is the opposite of liberal construction, which permits a term to be reasonably and fairly evaluated so as to implement the object and purpose of the document. Applicability in Penal Statutes A Penal Statute must be constructed strictly. This means that a criminal statute may not

be enlarged by implication or intent beyond the fair meaning of the language used or the meaning that is reasonably justified by its terms. It is fundamentally important in a free and just society that Law must be readily ascertainable and reasonably clear otherwise it is oppressive and deprives the citizen of one of his basic rights. An imprecise law can cause unjustified convictions because it would not be possible for the accused to defend himself against uncertainties. Therefore, an accused can be punished only if his act falls clearly into the four corners of the law without resorting to any special meaning or interpretation of the law. For example, in Seksaria Cotton Mills vs State of Bombay, 1954, SC held that in a penal statute, it is the duty of the Courts to interpret the words of ambiguous meaning in a broad and liberal sense so that they do not become traps for honest unlearned and unwary men. If there is honest and substantial compliance with an array of puzzling directions that should be enough, even if on some hyper critical view of the law other ingenious meanings can be devised. If a penal provision is capable of two reasonably possible constructions, then the one that exempts the accused from penalty must be used rather than the one that does not. Whether a particular construction achieves the intention of the statute or not is not up to the court to think about in case of penal statutes. It is not apt for the court to extend the scope of a mischief and to enlarge the penalty. It is not competent for the court to extend the meaning of the words to achieve the intention of the legislature. If a penal provision allows accused to go scot-free because of ambiguity of the law, then it is the duty of the legislature and not of the courts to fix the law. Unless the words of a statute clearly make an act criminal, it cannot be construed as criminal. Chinubhai vs State of Bombay, AIR 1960, is an important case in this respect. In this case, several workers in a factory died by inhaling poisonous gas when they entered into a pit in the factory premises to stop the leakage of the gas from a machine. The question was whether the employer violated section 3 of the Factories Act, which says that no person in any factory shall be permitted to enter any confined space in which dangerous fumes are likely to be present. The Supreme Court, while construing the provision strictly, held that the section does not impose an absolute duty on the employer to prevent workers from going into such area. It further observed that the fact that some workers were present in the confined space does not prove that the employer permitted them to go there. The prosecution must first prove that the workers were permitted to enter the space to convict the accused. Applicability in Taxing Statutes Tax is the money collected from the people for the purposes of public works. It is a source of revenue for the government. It is the right of the govt to collect tax according to the provisions of the law. No tax can be levied or collected except by the authority of law. In general, legislature enjoys wide discretion in the matter of taxing statutes as long as it satisfies the fundamental principle of classification as enshrined in Article 14. A person cannot be taxed unless the language of the statute unambiguously imposes the obligation without straining itself. In that sense, there is no reason why a taxing statute must be interpreted any differently from any other kind of statute. Indeed, SC, in the case of CIT vs Shahazada Nand and Sons, 1966, observed that the underlying principle is that the meaning and intention of a statute must be collected from the plain and unambiguous expression used therein rather than any notions which be entertained by the Courts as to what is just or expedient. In construing a statutory provision the first and foremost rule of construction is the literary construction. All that the court has to see at the very outset is what does the provision say. If the provision is unambiguous and if

from the provision the legislative intent is clear, the court need not call into aid the other rules of construction of statutes. The other rules of construction are called into aid only when the legislative intent is not clear. Lord Russel in Attorney General vs Calton Ban, 1989, illustrated categorically as, "I see no reason why special canons of construction should be applied to any act of parliament and I know of no authority for saying that a taxing statute is to be construed differently from any other act." However, as with any statute, a fiscal or taxing statute is also susceptible to human errors and impreciseness of the language. This may cause ambiguity or vagueness in its provisions. It is in such cases, the task of constructing a statute becomes open to various methods of construction. Since a person is compulsorily parted from his money due to tax, imposition of a tax is considered a type of imposition of a penalty, which can be imposed only if the language of the provision unequivocally says so. This means that a taxing statute must be strictly constructed. The principle of strict interpretation of taxing statutes was best enunciated by Rowlatt J. in his classic statement in Cape Brandy Syndicate v I.R.C. - "In a taxing statute one has to look merely at what is clearly said. There is no room for any intention. There is no equity about a tax. There is no presumption as to a tax. Nothing is to be read in, nothing is to be implied. One can look fairly at the language used." If by any reasonable meaning of the words, it is possible to avoid the tax, then that meaning must be chosen. There is no scope for any inference or induction in constructing a taxing statute. There is no room for suppositions as to spirit of the law or by way of inference. When the provision is reasonably open to only one meaning then it is not open to restrictive construction on the ground that the levy of tax, is oppressive , disproportionate, unreasonable or would cause hardship. There is no room for such speculation. The language must be explicit. Similarly, penalty provision in a taxing statute has to be specifically provided and cannot be inferred. In A. V. Fernandes vs State of Kerala, AIR 1957, the Supreme Court stated the principle that if the revenue satisfies the court that the case falls strictly within the provisions of the law, the subject can be taxed. If, on the other hand, the case does not fall within the four corners of the provisions of the taxing statute, no tax can be imposed by inference or by analogy or by trying to probe into the intentions of the Legislature and by considering what was the substance of the matter. This does not mean that equity and taxation are complete strangers. For example, in the case of CIT vs J H Kotla Yadgiri, 1985, SC held that since the income from business of wife or minor child is includable as income of the assessee, the profit or loss from such business should also be treated as the profit or loss from a businesss carried on by him for the purpose of carrying forward and set-off of the loss u/s. This interpretation was based on equity. However, it does not permit any one to take the benefit of an illegality. This is illustrated in the case of CIT vs Kurji Jinabhai Kotecha,AIR 1977, where Section .24(2) of IT Act was constructed as not to permit assessee to carry forward the loss of an illegal speculative business for setting it off against profits in subsequent years. This proves that even a taxing statute should be so construed as to be consistent with morality avoiding a a result that gives recognition to continued illegal activities or benefits attached to it. The rule of strict construction applies primarily to charging provisions in a taxing statute and has no application to a provision not creating a charge but laying down machinery

for its calculation or procedure for its collection. Thus, strict construction would not come in the way of requiring a person claiming an exemption. The provisions of exemptions are interpreted beneficially. Q. Discuss the principles of Constitutional Interpretation. Explain, "In the interpretation of constitution, the judicial approach should be dynamic than static, pragmatic than pedantic, and elastic than rigid". Describe - Harmonious Construction, Doctrine of Pith and Substance, Colourable Legislation, Proviso, Doctrine of Eclipse, Principle of separation. What is the proper function of a proviso? Can it affect the enacting portion of a section as well? Introduction Constitution is the supreme and fundamental law of our country. Since it is written in the form of a statute, the general principles of statutory interpretation are applicable to interpretation of the constitution as well. As is the case with any other statute, the court tries to find out the intention of the framers of the constitution from the words used by them. For example, in the case of State of Bihar vs Kameshwar Singh AIR 1952, SC used one of the standard principles of interpretation that where more than one reasonable interpretation of a constitutional provision are possible, that which would ensure a smooth and harmonious working of the constitution shall be accepted rather than the one that would lead to absurdity or give rise to practical inconvenience, or make well existing provisions of existing law nugatory, while interpreting the constitution.However, even if an argument based on the spirit of the constitution is very attractive, it must be validated with the spirit of the constitution as reflected by the words of the constitution. In the same case mentioned above, SC observed that spirit of the constitution cannot prevail if the language of the constitution does not support that view. It is important to note that the constitution itself endorses the general principles of interpretation through Article 367(1), which states that unless the context otherwise requires, the General Clauses Act, 1897 shall apply for the interpretation of this constitution as it applies for the interpretation of an act of the legislature. Courts have ruled in cases such as Jugmendar Das vs State 1951, that not only the general definitions given in General Clauses Act, but also the general rules of construction given therein are applicable to the constitution. Having said the above, the fact remains that Constitution is a special act. It is a fact that every provision of the constitution is constitutional and no part of it can be held unconstitutional. This casts an important duty on the interpreters of the constitution to interpret its provisions such that the spirit of the constitution is not maligned. In Keshvananda Bharati vs State of Kerala, AIR 1973, SC identified the basic structure of the constitution that reflects its true spirit and held that nothing that hurts the basic structure of the constitution, is constitutional. In the same case, SC held that one should give the freedom to the parliament to enact laws that ensure that the blessings of liberty be shared with all, but within the framework of the constitution. It is necessary towards that end that the constitution should not be construed in a narrow and pedantic sense. The letters of the constitution are fairly static and not very easy to change but the laws enacted by the legislature reflect the current state of people and are very dynamic. To ensure that the new laws are consistent with the basic structure of the constitution, the

constitution must be interpreted in broad and liberal manner giving affect to all its parts and the presumption must be that no conflict or repugnancy was intended by its framers. Applying the same logic, the provisions relating to fundamental rights have been interpreted broadly and liberally in favor of the subject. Similarly, various legislative entries mentioned in the Union, State, and Concurrent list have been construed liberally and widely. The following are some of the key principles applied specially in interpreting the provisions of the constitution 1. Principle of Harmonious construction 2. Doctrine of pith and substance 3. Doctrine of Colourable legislation 4. Principle of Ancillary powers 5. Principle of Occupied field 6. Residuary power 7. Doctrine of repugnancy 8. Principle of Territorial Nexus 9. Doctrine of stare decisis 10. Doctrine of prospective overruling Principle of Harmonious Construction The principle of harmonious interpretation is similar to the idea of broad or purposive approach. The key to this method of constitutional interpretation is that provisions of the Constitution should be harmoniously interpreted. As per Kelly: Constitutional provisions should not be construed in isolation from all other parts of the Constitution, but should be construed as to harmonize with those other parts. A provision of the constitution must be construed and considered as part of the Constitution and it should be given a meaning and an application which does not lead to conflict with other Articles and which confirms with the Constitutions general scheme. When there are two provisions in a statute, which are in apparent conflict with each other, they should be interpreted such that effect can be given to both and that construction which renders either of them inoperative and useless should not be adopted except in the last resort. This principle is illustrated in the case of Raj Krishna vs Binod AIR 1954. In this case, two provisions of Representation of People Act, 1951, which were in apparent conflict were brought forth. Section 33 (2) says that a Government Servant can nominate or second a person in election but section 123(8) says that a Government Servant cannot assist any candidate in election except by casting his vote. The Supreme Court observed that both these provisions should be harmoniously interpreted and held that a Government Servant was entitled to nominate or second a candidate seeking election in State Legislative assembly. This harmony can only be achieved if Section 123(8) is interpreted as giving the govt. servant the right to vote as well as to nominate or second a candidate and forbidding him to assist the candidate it any other manner. Upon looking at various cases, the following important aspects of this principle are evident -

1. The courts must avoid a head on clash of seemingly contradicting provisions and they must construe the contradictory provisions so as to harmonize them. 2. The provision of one section cannot be used to defeat the provision contained in another unless the court, despite all its effort, is unable to find a way to reconcile their differences. 3. When it is impossible to completely reconcile the differences in contradictory provisions, the courts must interpret them in such as way so that effect is given to both the provisions as much as possible. 4. Courts must also keep in mind that interpretation that reduces one provision to a useless number or a dead lumbar, is not harmonious construction. 5. To harmonize is not to destroy any statutory provision or to render it otiose. Doctrine of Pith and Substance Pith means "true nature" or "essence" and substance means the essential nature underlying a phenomenon. Thus, the doctrine of pith and substance relates to finding out the true nature of a statute. This doctrine is widely used when deciding whether a state is within its rights to create a statute that involves a subject mentioned in Union List of the Constitution. The basic idea behind this principle is that an act or a provision created by the State is valid if the true nature of the act or the provision is about a subject that falls in the State list. The case of State of Maharashtra vs F N Balsara AIR 1951 illustrates this principle very nicely. In this case, the State of Maharashtra passed Bombay Prohibition Act that prohibited the sale and storage of liquor. This affected the business of the appellant who used to import liquor. He challenged the act on the ground that import and export are the subjects that belong in Union list and state is incapable of making any laws regarding it. SC rejected this argument and held that the true nature of the act is prohibition of alcohol in the state and this subject belongs to the State list. The court looks at the true character and nature of the act having regard to the purpose, scope, objective, and the effects of its provisions. Therefore, the fact that the act superficially touches on import of alcohol does not make it invalid. Thus, as held in State of W Bengal vs Kesoram Industries, 2004, the courts have to ignore the name given to the act by the legislature and must also disregard the incidental and superficial encroachments of the act and has to see where the impact of the legislation falls. It must then decide the constitutionality of the act. Principle of Incidental or Ancillary Powers This principle is an addition to the doctrine of Pith and Substance. What it means is that the power to legislate on a subject also includes power to legislate on ancillary matters that are reasonably connected to that subject. It is not always sufficient to determine the constitutionality of an act by just looking at the pith and substance of the act. In such cases, it has to be seen whether the matter referred in the act is essential to give affect to the main subject of the act. For example, power to impose tax would include the power to search and seizure to prevent the evasion of that tax. Similarly, the power to legislate on Land reforms includes the power to legislate on mortgage of the land. However, power relating to banking cannot be extended to include power relating to nonbanking entities. However, if a subject is explicitly mentioned in a State or Union list, it cannot be said to be an ancillary matter. For example, power to tax is mentioned in specific entries in the lists and so the power to tax cannot be claimed as ancillary to the power relating to any other entry of the lists.

As held in the case of State of Rajasthan vs G Chawla AIR 1959, the power to legislate on a topic includes the power to legislate on an ancillary matter which can be said to be reasonably included in the topic. The underlying idea behind this principle is that the grant of power includes everything necessary to exercise that power. However, this does not mean that the scope of the power can be extended to any unreasonable extent. Supreme Court has consistently cautioned against such extended construction. For example, in R M D Charbaugwala vs State of Mysore, AIR 1962, SC held that betting and gambling is a state subject as mentioned in Entry 34 of State list but it does not include power to impose taxes on betting and gambling because it exists as a separate item as Entry 62 in the same list. Doctrine of Colourable Legislation This doctrine is based on the principle that what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly. In other words, if the constitution does not permit certain provision of a legislation, any provision that has the same effect but in a round about manner is also unconstitutional. This doctrine is found on the wider doctrine of "fraud on the constitution". A thing is Colourable when it seems to be one thing in the appearance but another thing underneath. K C Gajapati Narayan Deo vs State of Orissa, AIR 1953 is a famous case that illustrates the applicability of this doctrine. In this case, SC observed that the constitution has clearly distributed the legislative powers to various bodies, which have to act within their respective spheres. These limitations are marked by specific legislatives entries or in some cases these limitations are imposed in the form of fundamental rights of the constitution. Question may arise whether while enacting any provision such limits have been transgressed or not. Such transgression may be patent, manifest or direct. But it may also be covert, disguised, or indirect. It is to this later class of transgression that the doctrine of colourable legislation applies. In such case, although the legislation purports to act within the limits of its powers, yet in substance and in reality, it transgresses those powers. The transgression is veiled by mere pretense or disguise. But the legislature cannot be allowed to violate the constitutional prohibition by an indirect method. In this case, the validity of Orissa Agricultural Income Tax (Amendment) Act 1950 was in question. The argument was that it was not a bona fide taxation law but a colourable legislation whose main motive was to artificially lower the income of the intermediaries so that the state has to pay less compensation to them under Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1952. SC held that it was not colourable legislation because the state was well within its power to set the taxes, no matter how unjust it was. The state is also empowered to adopt any method of compensation. The motive of the legislature in enacting a law is totally irrelevant. A contrasting case is of K T Moopil Nair vs State of Kerala, AIR 1961. In this case, the state imposed a tax under Travencore Cochin Land Tax Act, 1955, which was so high that it was many times the annual income that the person was earning from the land. The SC held the act as violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(f) in view of the fact that in the disguise of tax a person's property was being confiscated. Similarly, in Balaji vs State of Mysore, AIR 1963, SC held that the order reserving 68% of the seats for students belonging to backward classes was violative of Article 14 in disguise of making a provision under Article 15(4).