From the resolution of contentious issues regarding distribution of legislative powers by the courts, principle of federal supremacy and harmonious construction have emerged. Explain.
Answers
Answer:
Principle of federal supremacy: Union has more legislative and executive powers than state.
Principle of harmonious construction: The rule of harmonious construction is the thumb rule to interpretation of any statute. An interpretation which makes the enactment a consistent whole, should be the aim of the Courts and a construction which avoids inconsistency or repugnancy between the various sections or parts of the statute should be adopted.
Emergence of principle of federal supremacy.
1)Union given more legislative and executive power..
2)SC time and again upholded the superiority of union even in contentious cases, for example the Delhi LG and state govt case where supremacy of union appointed LG was upholded to some extent..
Emergence of harmonious construction
1)Calcutta Gas Company Pvt. Limited v State of West Bengal
The Legislative Assembly of WB passed the Oriental Gas Company Act in 1960. The respondent sought to take over the management of the Gas Company under this Act. The appellant challenged the validity of this act by holding that the state Legislative Assembly had no power to pass such an under Entries 24 and 25 of the State List because the Parliament had already enacted the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 under Entry 52 of the Central List dealing with industries. It was observed by the Supreme Court that there are so many subjects in three lists in the Constitution that there is bound to be some overlapping and it is the duty of the courts in such situation is to yet to harmonise them, if possible, so the effect can be given to each of them. Entry 24 of the State List covers entire Industries in the State. Entry 25 is only limited to the Gas industry. Therefore Entry 24 covers every industry barring the Gas Industries because it has been specifically covered under Entry 25. Corresponding to Entry 24 of the State List, there is Entry 52 in the Union List. Therefore, by harmonious construction it became clear that gas industry was exclusively covered by Entry 25 of the State List over which the state has full control. Therefore, the state was fully competent to make laws in this regard.
2) Commissioner of Sales Tax, MP v Radha Krishna
Under section 46 (1) c of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958, criminal prosecution of the respondent partners was sanctioned in this case by the Commissioner when even after repeated demands the assesse did not pay the sales tax. The respondent challenged this provision on the ground that there were two separate provisions under the Act, namely, section 22 (4 – A) and section 46 (1) c under which two different procedures were prescribed to realize the amount due but there was no provision of law which could tell that which provision should be applied in which case. According to the Supreme Court, the provision prescribed u/s 46 (1) c was more drastic. It was held that by harmonious construction of these two provisions, the conclusion drawn is that the Commissioner had a judicial discretion to decide as to which procedure to be followed in which case. Whenever the Commissioner will fail to act judicially, the court will have the right to intervene. However, in this case, the Commissioner had correctly decided that the more drastic procedure under section 46 (1) c deserved to be followed because of the failure of the assesse firm in paying sales tax despite the repeated demands by the sales tax officer.