Doctrine Of Incidental And Ancillary Powers
It is an addition to the doctrine of Pith and Substance. It also includes rights to legislate on ancillary matters with the right to legislate on a subject. It doesn’t imply that the extent of the power can be stretched out to an unreasonable extent. For example, in R M D Charbaugwala vs State of Mysore, Supreme Court held that wagering and betting is a state subject as referenced in the State list however it excludes capacity to impose taxes on wagering and betting because it exists as a separate item in the same list.
In Prafulla Kumar Mukherjee v. The Bank of Commerce case it is explained that matters with which state legislature is dealing may affect any item in the union list. The court held that, according to its true nature and character, such a matter should be put in the appropriate list. When a Legislature is given plenary power to legislate on a subject there must also be an implied power to make laws incidental to the exercise of such power. It is a fundamental principle of constitutional law that every thing necessary to the exercise of a power is included
in the grant of the power. It is true in respect of statutes also.
As held in the case of State of Rajasthan v. G Chawla , 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. 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 Chamarbaugwala v. State of Mysore, 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.
Also read - Prafulla Kumar Mukjherjee v Bank of Commerce - doctrine of Pith & Substance
0 Comments