2010 Supreme(SC) 359

2010 (3) Supreme 494
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.V. Raveendran and Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, JJ.
Zameer Ahmed Latifur Rehman Sheikh — Appellant
versus
State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1975 of 2008
Decided on : 23-04-2010

IMPORTANT POINTS
1. It is well settled that no provision or word in a statute is to be read in isolation. In fact, the statute has to be read as a whole and in its entirety.
2. State Legislature does not have power to legislate upon any of the matters enumerated in the Union List. However, if it could be shown that the core area and the subject-matter of the legislation is covered by an entry in the State List, then any incidental encroachment upon an entry in the Union List would not be enough so as to render the State law invalid, and such an incidental encroachment will not make the legislation ultra vires the Constitution.
3. Best test of repugnancy is that if one prevails, the other cannot prevail.

Headnote:Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999- Section 2(1)(e)- Constitutional Validity of -Appeals filed by appellants against judgment and order rendered by the High Court whereby the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the appellants-Plea of appellants that Maharashtra State legislature did not have legislative competence to enact such a provision-Held that the term “promoting insurgency” as contemplated under Section 2(1)(e) of the MCOCA comes within the concept of public order- Anything that affects public peace or tranquility within the State or the Province would also affect public order and the State Legislature is empowered to enact laws aimed at containing or preventing acts which tend to or actually affect public order- Even if the said part of the MCOCA incidentally encroaches upon a field under Entry 1 of the Union list, the same cannot be held to be ultra vires in view of the doctrine of pith and substance as in essence said part relates to maintenance of Public Order which is essentially a State subject and only incidentally trenches upon a matter falling under the Union List-Hence held that it is within legislative competence of the State of Maharashtra to enact such a provision under Entries 1 and 2 of List II read with Entries 1, 2 and 12 of List III of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. (Paras 42, 43)

       Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999- Section 2(1)(e)- Constitutional Validity of -Appeals filed by appellants against judgment and order rendered by the High Court whereby the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the appellants-Plea of appellants that the part of Section 2(1)(e) of the MCOCA, so far as it covers case of insurgency, is repugnant and has become void by the enactment of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act, 2004, amending Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967-A perusal of Preamble, Statement of Objects and Reasons and the Interpretation clauses of the MCOCA and the UAPA shows that both the acts operate in different fields and the ambit and scope of each is distinct from the other- So far as the MCOCA is concerned, it principally deals with prevention and control of criminal activity by organised crime syndicate or gang within India and its purpose is to curb a wide range of criminal activities indulged in by organised syndicate or gang- The aim of the UAPA, on the other hand, is to deal with terrorist and certain unlawful activities, which are committed with the intent to threaten unity, integrity, security or sovereignty of India or with the intent to strike terror in the people or any section of people in India or in any foreign country or relate to cessation or secession of territory of India-Under the MCOCA the emphasis is on crime and pecuniary benefits arising therefrom.- In the wisdom of the legislature these are activities which are committed with the objective of gaining pecuniary benefits or economic advantages and which over a period of time have extended to promoting insurgency- The concept of offence of ‘terrorist act’ under section 15 of the UAPA essentially postulates a threat or likely threat to unity, integrity, security and sovereignty of India or striking terror amongst people in India or in foreign country or to compel the Government of India or Government of a foreign country or any other person to do or abstain from doing any act- Again, the meaning of the term ‘Unlawful Activity’ in MCOCA is altogether different from the meaning of the term ‘Unlawful Activity’ in the UAPA- MCOCA does not deal with the terrorist organisations which indulge in terrorist activities and similarly, the UAPA does not deal with organised gangs or crime syndicate of the kind specifically targeted by the MCOCA- Thus, the offence of organised crime under the MCOCA and the offence of terrorist act under the UAPA operate in different fields and are of different kinds and their essential contents and ingredients are altogether different-.Analysis relating to the essential elements of offence of ‘promoting insurgency’ under Section 2 (1) (e) of the MCOCA and the offence of terrorist act and unlawful activity under Section 15 and Section 2 (1)(o) of the UAPA respectively, clearly establishes that the UAPA occupies a field different than that occupied by the MCOCA- There is no clear and direct inconsistency or conflict between the said provisions of the two Acts-No interference called for with impugned judgment of High Court-Appeals dismissed. (Paras 60 to 66)

       Interpretation of Statutes-It is a well-established rule of interpretation that the entries in the List being fields of legislation must receive liberal construction inspired by a broad and generous spirit and not a narrow or pedantic approach- Each general word should extend to all ancillary and subsidiary matters which can fairly and reasonably be comprehended within it-It is also a cardinal rule of interpretation that there shall always be a presumption of constitutionality in favour of a statute and while construing such statute every legally permissible effort should be made to keep statute within the competence of the State Legislature. (Para 34)

       [AIR 1951 SC 41], [(2002) 8 SCC 481], [(2008) 2 SCC 254 [AIR 1955 SC 58], [(2008) 13 SCC 5]],referred

       Doctrine of pith and substance-Applicability of- This doctrine is applied when the legislative competence of the legislature with regard to a particular enactment is challenged with reference to the entries in various lists- If there is a challenge to the legislative competence, the courts try to ascertain the pith and substance of such enactment on a scrutiny of the Act in question- In this process, it is necessary for the courts to go into and examine the true character of the enactment, its object, its scope and effect to find out whether the enactment in question is genuinely referable to a field of the legislation allotted to the respective legislature under the constitutional scheme- Where a challenge is made to the constitutional validity of a particular State Act with reference to a subject mentioned in any entry in List I, the Court has to look to the substance of the State Act and on such analysis and examination, if it is found that in the pith and substance, it falls under an entry in the State List but there is only an incidental encroachment on any of the matters enumerated in the Union List, the State Act would not become invalid merely because there is incidental encroachment on any of the matters in the Union List. (Para 35)

       Words and Phrases-Insurgency-insurgency is undoubtedly a serious form of internal disturbance which causes a grave threat to the life of people, creates panic situation and also hampers the growth and economic prosperity of the State.(Paras 24 to 26)

       Repugnancy-Conditions which must be satisfied before any repugnancy could arise between the Central Act and the State Act -There should be a clear and direct inconsistency between the Central Act and the State Act-. Such an inconsistency must be absolutely irreconcilable-That the inconsistency between the provisions of the two Acts is of such nature as to bring the two Acts into direct collision with each other and a situation is reached where it is impossible to obey the one without disobeying the other. (Para 49)

       Facts of the Case :

       In present appeals Appellants have challenged the constitutional validity of Section 2(1)(e) of the MCOCA, so far it relates to ‘promoting insurgency’ on following two grounds:-

       (a) the Maharashtra State legislature did not have legislative competence to enact such a provision; and

       (b) the part of Section 2(1)(e) of the MCOCA, so far as it covers case of ‘insurgency’, is repugnant and has become void by enactment of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act, 2004, amending the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

       Findings of the Court :

       It was Held that the term “promoting insurgency” as contemplated under Section 2(1)(e) of the MCOCA comes within the concept of public order. Anything that affects public peace or tranquility within the State or the Province would also affect public order and the State Legislature is empowered to enact laws aimed at containing or preventing acts which tend to or actually affect public order. Even if the said part of the MCOCA incidentally encroaches upon a field under Entry 1 of the Union list, the same cannot be held to be ultra vires in view of the doctrine of pith and substance as in essence said part relates to maintenance of Public Order which is essentially a State subject and only incidentally trenches upon a matter falling under the Union List. Hence held that it was within legislative competence of the State of Maharashtra to enact such a provision under Entries 1 and 2 of List II read with Entries 1, 2 and 12 of List III of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution.

       Apart from that a perusal of Preamble, Statement of Objects and Reasons and the Interpretation clauses of the MCOCA and the UAPA shows that both the acts operate in different fields and the ambit and scope of each is distinct from the other. So far as the MCOCA is concerned, it principally deals with prevention and control of criminal activity by organised crime syndicate or gang within India and its purpose is to curb a wide range of criminal activities indulged in by organised syndicate or gang. The aim of the UAPA, on the other hand, is to deal with terrorist and certain unlawful activities, which are committed with the intent to threaten unity, integrity, security or sovereignty of India or with the intent to strike terror in the people or any section of people in India or in any foreign country or relate to cessation or secession of territory of India. Under the MCOCA the emphasis is on crime and pecuniary benefits arising therefrom. In the wisdom of the legislature these are activities which are committed with the objective of gaining pecuniary benefits or economic advantages and which over a period of time have extended to promoting insurgency. The concept of offence of ‘terrorist act’ under section 15 of the UAPA essentially postulates a threat or likely threat to unity, integrity, security and sovereignty of India or striking terror amongst people in India or in foreign country or to compel the Government of India or Government of a foreign country or any other person to do or abstain from doing any act.Again, the meaning of the term ‘Unlawful Activity’ in MCOCA is altogether different from the meaning of the term ‘Unlawful Activity’ in the UAPA. MCOCA does not deal with the terrorist organisations which indulge in terrorist activities and similarly, the UAPA does not deal with organised gangs or crime syndicate of the kind specifically targeted by the MCOCA. Thus, the offence of organised crime under the MCOCA and the offence of terrorist act under the UAPA operate in different fields and are of different kinds and their essential contents and ingredients are altogether different.Analysis relating to the essential elements of offence of ‘promoting insurgency’ under Section 2 (1) (e) of the MCOCA and the offence of terrorist act and unlawful activity under Section 15 and Section 2 (1)(o) of the UAPA respectively, clearly establishes that the UAPA occupies a field different than that occupied by MCOCA. There is no clear and direct inconsistency or conflict between the said provisions of the two Acts Hence held that No interference was called for with impugned judgment of High Court. Appeals were dismissed.