Provisions opposed to Article 14 and 19(1)(8) of the Constitution.

S. RAMACHANDRA IYER, C.J. :- The petitioners in these two petitions are carrying on business as money-lenders in the city of Madras and Salem respectively and they have approached this Court by means of these two petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of Mandamus or other appropriate writ to direct the State of Madras to forbear from enforcing the provisions of the Madras Money Lenders Act (Madras Act XXVI of 1957) hereafter to be referred to as the Act. In the affidavits filed in support of the petitions the Constitutional validity of the Act and in particular of Ss. 2(6) to (8), 4(3), 10 and 14 of the Act have been challenged, the contention being that they contravene either or both the fundamental rights guaranteed under Arts. 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

2. The Act came into force on 16-10-1959 and it forms part of a series of legislative measures enacted by the State legislature to control and regulate the profession of money lending. The preamble to the Act states :

"Whereas it is expedient to make provision for the regulation and control of the business of money-lenders in the State of Madras."

While the preamble might not be useful as a guide to the construction of a statute where the terms thereof are clear, it has always been regarded as conclusive of the reasons which motivated the Parliament or the Legislature to bring the legislation in question. It is also permissible where the constitutional validity of an enactment is in question to understand the scope of the preamble in the light of the statement of the objects and reasons. We shall presently refer to it. From the affidavit of the undersecretary to the Government of Madras in the Department of Industries, Labour and Co-operation, it appears that representations had been made to the Government by individuals and associations regarding the existence of a large number of unscrupulous money lenders in the State who were charging exhorbitant rates of interest. A substantial part of such money lenders were the Marvaries and Pathans who lent monies to the lower middle class people and lowly paid Government servants and other wage-earners. There were also complaints from, the helpless and impecunious borrowers that such money-lenders charged high rates of interest on their borrowings, obtained from them documents for amounts much larger than what was actually lent; that no proper accounts were maintained of the monies paid back by the borrowers and that the accounts maintained were all written up in a language which was not the regional language and which could not easily be deciphered. There were a number of cases in courts which related to claims of the money lenders, where the defence to the action was that the documents executed by the debtors in favour of the lenders to evidence the loan were for twice or thrice the amount actually lent or borrowed.

In several of such cases such defences were upheld. There were also complaints about the unscrupulous methods adopted by those money lenders on the pay day of their debtors. These people used to wait at the gates of Government offices or other commercial firms waiting for their debtors to snatch away their dues from out of the pay they had received. Many malpractices followed by a special class of money lenders known as pawn-brokers were also brought to the notice of the Government. With a view to put an end to all such evils, the Legislature first introduced S. 51-A of the City Police Act, 1888, which authorised the Commissioner of Police to direct the removal of a person from the city limits when he was satisfied that the movements or acts of the person were causing alarm, danger or harm to the persons or property. But this statutory provision did not achieve its object or improve matters. The Legislature then enacted the Madras Pawn Brokers Act (Madras Act XXIII of 1943) to control and regulate the business of pawn brokers who did money lending. That enactment was found i