Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
V.R. KRISHNA IYER, R.S. PATHAK AND O. CHINNAPPA REDDY, JJ.
Srinivasa Enterprises and others, Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and etc., Respondents.
Writ Petns. Nos. 711, 138, 1152 and 1546 of 1979, D/- 24-9-1980.
Advocates appeared
Mr. K. K. Venugopal, Sr. Advocate (in W.P.No. 138) and Mr. A. Subba Rao, Advocate (in W.P. Nos. 138 and 711 of 1979), Mr. M. M. Abdul Khader, Sr. Advocate (M/s. M. A. Feroze, M. R. K. Pillai and K. R. Rajasekharan Pillai, Advocates with him) (in W.P. No. 1152 of 1979) and Mr. B. Kanta Rao, Advocate (in W.P. No. 1546 of 1979), for Petitioners; Mr. K. Parasaran, Solicitor General (Miss A. Subhashini, Advocate with him), for Union of India; Mr. P. Ram Reddy, Sr. Advocate (Mr. G. N. Rao Advocate with him) (in W.P. No. 1546 of 1979) and Mr. K. R. Nambiar, Advocate (for No.3) in W.P.No. 1152 of 1979, for Respondents; M/s. P. H. Parekh, C. B.Singh and Rajan Karanjawala, Advocates, for the Intervener in W.P. No. 711 of 1979.
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 32 - Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 - Section 2 (a) , 11 and 12 - State Bank of India (Subsidiary Banks) Act, 1959 - Section 3 - State Bank of India Act, 1955 - Section 3 - Banking Regulation Act, 1949 - Section 5 - Section 2 - State Bank of India (Subsidiary Banks) Act, 1959 - Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 - Prize chit - Collects moneys in lump sum or instalments - Quintessential aspects of a prize chit are that organizer collects moneys in lump sum or instalments, pursuant to a scheme or arrangement, and he utilises such moneys as he fancies primarily for his private appetite and for (1) awarding periodically or otherwise to a specified number of subscribers, prizes in cash or kind and (2) refunding to subscribers whole or part of money collected on termination of scheme or otherwise - Apparent tenor may not fully bring out exploitative import lurking beneath the surface of words which describe scheme - Indigent agrestics and proletarian urbanites, pressured by dire poverty and doped by hazy hope of a lucky draw, subscribe to scheme although they can ill-afford to spare any money - Whether activities of companies conducting price Chits, etc., are clearly prohibited by existing legislations – Held, It deals with a special species of contracts with sinister features, although one such feature is award of prizes to subscribers - Court do not think it necessary to expand on subject and the incidental impact on lotteries does not affect vires of Act - He wanted court to declare so but decline to do so, since under Article 32 this courts function is not to give advisory opinion to petitioners but to pronounce upon transgression of fundamental rights by State action. while there is no merit in his submission of procedural unreasonableness in provisions of Act, it is perfectly open to Writ petitioner to urge his plea that Act does not apply to his scheme if he were prosecuted - State lotteries escalating year after year and enticing proletarian sections of people across States are dubious in morality and ruinous in impact - Moreover, a detailed study may disclose diminishing returns and increasing establishment expenses, menace to peaceful life and traffic and dubious consequences - So much so, a second look at propriety of these State-run schemes and reversion to old stance of State setting an anti-lottery example, is worthwhile from many angles - Petition dismissed.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The case pertains to a constitutional challenge related to the regulation of trade and commerce, specifically focusing on prize chits and money circulation schemes [judgement_subject] (!) .
The legislation under consideration defines a prize chit broadly, including any arrangement where money is collected and used to award prizes or refund contributions, with certain exclusions such as conventional chits (!) (!) .
The primary concern with prize chits is their exploitative nature, especially targeting economically weaker sections of society, including rural and urban poor, who are pressured into subscribing despite limited means (!) (!) (!) .
These schemes often operate under the guise of mutual benefit or savings but primarily benefit promoters and operate at the expense of subscribers, often resulting in financial loss to the latter (!) (!) (!) .
The schemes are associated with malpractices such as non-payment of prizes, misappropriation of funds, and fraudulent practices in the drawing of winners, which have attracted judicial and regulatory scrutiny (!) (!) .
The State has taken legislative measures to prohibit prize chits due to their harmful social and economic impact, including their potential to facilitate illegal activities like tax evasion and black money circulation (!) (!) (!) .
The legislation provides for a transitional period for existing prize chit schemes to wind up or switch to permissible activities, aiming to prevent abrupt financial hardships while maintaining a broad prohibition (!) .
Exemptions are granted to schemes promoted or controlled by government authorities or financial institutions under public regulation, justified by their public control and oversight (!) .
The legislation's scope and restrictions are justified as reasonable measures to protect public interest, morality, and economic stability, even if they impose restrictions on certain trade activities (!) (!) .
The Court emphasizes the importance of legislative authority within constitutional limits, noting that the law is within the competence of Parliament and aligns with the broader objectives of social welfare and economic regulation (!) (!) .
The Court dismisses the petitions, affirming that the total prohibition is justified given the social harm caused by prize chits, and indicates that remedial measures for genuine cases of hardship can be addressed by the government under existing provisions (!) (!) .
Overall, the judgment underscores the state's authority to enact comprehensive legislation banning prize chit schemes to safeguard societal interests, with a focus on preventing exploitation and promoting economic integrity [judgement_subject].
Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific legal advice related to this case.
Judgment
KRISHNA IYER, J. :- Section 2 (a) of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 (Act 43 of 1978) (for short, the Act), defines a Prize Chit inclusively :
2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,
xxx xxx xxx
(e) "prize chit" includes any transaction or arrangement by whatever name called under which a person collects whether as a promoter, foreman, agent or in any other capacity, monies in one lump sum or in instalments by way of contributions or subscriptions or by sale of units, certificates or other instruments or in any other manner or as membership fees or admission fees or service charges to or in respect of any savings, mutual benefit, thrift, or any other scheme or arrangement by whatever name called, and utilises the monies so collected or any part thereof or the income accruing from investment or other use of such monies for all or any of the following purposes, namely :-
(i) giving or awarding periodically or otherwise to a specified number of subscribers as determined by lot, draw or in any other manner, prizes or gifts in cash or in kind whether or not the recipient of the prize or gift is under a liability to make any further payment in respect of such scheme or arrangement;
(ii) refunding to the subscribers or such of them as have not won any prize or gift, the whole or part of the subscriptions, contributions or other monies collected, with or without any bonus. premium, interest or other advantage by whatever name called, on the termination of the scheme or arrangement, or on or after the expiry of the period stipulated therein,
but does not include a conventional chit;
The quintessential aspects of a prize chit are that the organizer collects moneys in lump sum or instalments, pursuant to a scheme or arrangement, and he utilises such moneys as he fancies primarily for his private appetite and for (1) awarding periodically or otherwise to a specified number of subscribers, prizes in cash or kind and (2) refunding to the subscribers the whole or part of the money collected on the termination of the scheme or otherwise. The apparent tenor may not fully bring out the exploitative import lurking beneath the surface of the words which describe the scheme. Small sums are collected from, vast numbers of persons, ordinarily of slender means, in urban and rural areas. They are reduced, to believe by the blare of glittering publicity and the dangling of astronomical amounts that they stand a chance - in practice, negligible - of getting a huge fortune by making petty periodical payments. The indigent agrestics and the proletarian urbanites, pressured by dire poverty and doped by the hazy hope of a lucky draw, subscribe to the scheme although they can ill-afford to spare any money. This is not promotion of thrift or wholesome small savings because the poor who pay, are bound to continue to pay for a whole period of a few years over peril of losing what has been paid and, at the end of it, the fragile prospects of their getting prizes are next to nil and even the hard-earned money which they have invested hardly carries any interest. They are eligible to get back the money they have paid in driblets, virtually without interest, the expression bonus in Section 2 (a) being an euphemism for a nominal sum. What is more, the repayable amount being small and the subscribers being scattered all over the country, they find it difficult even to recover the money by expensive dilatory litigative process.
2. Since there are a large number of prize chits all over the country which have almost become a pan-Indian epidemic and since the total number of people victimised by these projects are considerable the injury to the community is substantial, so that a welfare state dedicated to the Directive Principles of Part IV has to awake and protect the vulnerable sector. Another weighty factor which has alerted the State into action is that the flood of funds flowing through prize chits benefit the organi
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
