Facts of the Case
A State Legislature enacted a law prohibiting the sale and possession of liquor within the state. The law was challenged on the ground that it incidentally encroached upon import and export of liquor across the custom frontier, which is a Union subject under the Union List. The question arises whether the state law is constitutionally valid in light of potential conflict with Union legislative powers.
Issues in the Case
- Whether a State law prohibiting sale and possession of liquor encroaches upon the Union List relating to import and export across customs frontiers.
- Whether such incidental overlap makes the law invalid under Article 246 and Article 254.
- To what extent the state can legislate on subjects in the Concurrent or State List without conflicting with Union powers.
Legal Principles Covered
A. Constitutional Provisions
- Article 246 – Subject Matter of Laws by Parliament and State Legislatures
- List I (Union List): Parliament has exclusive power to legislate.
- List II (State List): State Legislature can legislate subject to Union powers.
- List III (Concurrent List): Both can legislate; Union law prevails in case of conflict.
- Article 254 – Inconsistency between Union and State Laws
- If a State law conflicts with a Union law in the same field, the Union law prevails.
- The State law is void to the extent of repugnancy.
- Entry 51 of State List
- State has power to regulate intoxicating liquors within the state.
- Trade across customs frontier falls under Union List.
B. Judicial Principles / Precedents
- State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara (1951 SCR 682)
- Supreme Court held that a State law on liquor within state boundaries is valid even if it incidentally affects import/export, provided it is primarily aimed at regulation within the state.
- Bharat Petroleum v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2001) 6 SCC 96
- Incidental encroachment on Union subject is not sufficient to invalidate a State law, if the dominant purpose is within State List competence.
- R. C. Cooper v. Union of India (1970) 1 SCC 248
- Laws must be tested on pith and substance, not incidental effects.
C. Principle of “Pith and Substance”
- The validity of legislation is determined by its main object (pith and substance).
- Incidental encroachment on Union subjects does not invalidate a state law if the main purpose falls within State List competence.
Possible Judgement / Legal Advice
- Pith and Substance Test
- The State law’s main objective is to prohibit sale and possession of liquor within the state.
- Incidental effect on import/export is not sufficient to strike down the law.
- Validity of State Law
- The law is valid under Article 246(2) and State List entries, as its dominant purpose is within state legislative competence.
- Guidelines for Enforcement
- State authorities may regulate liquor within borders but cannot interfere with interstate or international import/export beyond state jurisdiction.
Advisory Conclusion:
The State law prohibiting sale and possession of liquor is constitutionally valid. Its incidental effect on Union subject (import/export) does not render it void, provided the primary object remains within the State List competence.
About lawgnan
Wondering how a State law remains valid even when it slightly overlaps with Union powers? Learn how the pith and substance doctrine protects state legislation from being struck down due to incidental encroachment. At Lawgnan.in, our legal experts simplify complex constitutional issues, explaining how Articles 246 and 254 operate in determining legislative competence. Get clarity on the State’s power to regulate liquor, Union authority over imports/exports, and landmark Supreme Court rulings shaping this principle. Visit Lawgnan.in today for in-depth legal analysis, expert commentary, and case-based learning on constitutional law.
