RMDC v. Union of India

DOCTRINE OF SEVERABILITY

This Hon'ble court explained the doctrine as follows:

"When a legislature whose authority is subject to limitations aforesaid enacts a law which is wholly in excess of its powers, it is entirely void and must be completely ignored. But when the legislation falls in part within the area allotted to it and in part outside it, it is undoubtedly void as to the latter; but does it on that become necessarily void in its entirety? The answer to this question must depend on whether what is valid could be separated from what is invalid, and that is a question which has to be decided by the Court on a consideration of the provisions of the act.”

JUDGEMENT AND ANALYSIS

• This Hon'ble court explained the nuances of the doctrine. It determined that:

  • (i) the intention of legislature is the determining factor,

  • (ii) if the valid and invalid provisions cannot be separated from each other, the entire Act would be invalidated,

  • (iii) if after the invalid portion is expunged from the statute, what remains cannot be enforced without making alterations and modifications, the whole of the Act would be struck down and declared as void.

• Here, this Hon'ble court observed that the Prize Competitions Act was broad enough to include competitions of a gambling nature as well as those involving skill. Under Article 19(1)(g) (Right to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business), Parliament could restrict prize competitions only of a gambling nature but not those involving skill. Holding that the application of the Act could be restricted to the former, the Court stated that Parliament would have still enacted the law to regulate competitions of gambling nature; nor did restricting the Act to this kind of competitions affect its texture or colour. The provisions of the Act were thus held severable in their application to competitions in which success didn’t depend on any substantial extent or skill.

• It was examined that there existed some inconsistency between the Ramesh Thappar and the current case. When an offending provision is couched in a language wide enough to cover restrictions within and without the Constitutionally permissible limits, according to the Ramesh Thappar case, it cannot be split up if there is a possibility of its being applied for purposes not sanctioned by the Constitution. However, according to the current case, such a provision is considered valid if it is severable in its application to an object which is clearly demarcated from other objects falling outside the Constitutionally permissible legislation.

• The court stated that in the current case, the difference between the two classes of competitions, i.e. “those that are gambling in nature” and “those in which success depends on skill”, was clear cut and had long been recognised in legislative practice. But when the difference between what is permissible and what is not permissible was not very precise, the whole provision was considered as void, irrespective of whether the view was taken from the Ramesh Thappar or the current case.

• It was further observed that if the Court has the ultimate control to decide whether a particular application of the law goes beyond the permissible limits, then there may not be any danger of misuse of the provision. If, however, the matter has been left to the subjective satisfaction of the Executive, and the Court cannot scrutinise the basis of such satisfaction to see whether the law has been applied to a purpose not permitted, then it will be safer to declare the whole provision bad.

{pg 1209, 1210, Indian Constitutional Law by MP Jain 6th ed}

🏛️ Additional Landmark Judgments Cited

Article 12 - Definition of 'State'

• University of Madras v. Shantabai: Held that the words "other authorities" in Article 12 must be construed ejusdem generis (of the same kind) with the Government or Legislature, and so construed can only mean authorities exercising governmental functions.

• Ujjam v. State of UP: Held that the bodies named under Article 12 have no common genus running through them and cannot be placed in one single category on any rational basis.

Article 13 - Laws Inconsistent with Fundamental Rights

• A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras: Held that Section 14 of the Preventive Detention Act was inconsistent with fundamental rights, leading to the removal of Section 14.

• Deep Chand v. Union of India: Stated the differences between post- and pre-Constitutional law (regarding the application of the Doctrine of Eclipse/Severability).

• State of Bombay v. Narasu Appa Mali: Held that “personal laws” aren't included in the expression “laws in force” in Article 13(1) of the Constitution.

• Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala: Held that the definition of law under Article 13(3) is inclusive and it would be inappropriate to put a restrictive interpretation upon terms of wider denotation.