A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The landmark case of A. S. Krishna v. State of Madras critically evaluated the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the Madras Prohibition Act, 1937. The appellants challenged sections 4(2) and 28-32 of the Act, asserting their repugnancy to existing central laws and violation of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. The Supreme Court clarified the “pith and substance” doctrine while adjudicating legislative competence under the Government of India Act, 1935. It was emphasized that if a statute primarily belongs to a field assigned to the legislature, incidental encroachment into other fields will not render it unconstitutional. The judgment validated the presumption clauses and procedural powers under the Prohibition Act, thereby affirming the wide-ranging legislative powers of states in matters under their exclusive list. The ruling substantially influences federal legislative interpretations, strengthening state autonomy in matters under their domain, while also laying a foundation for the presumption of guilt within constitutional limits.

Keywords: Pith and Substance Doctrine, Madras Prohibition Act, Legislative Competence, Presumption of Guilt, Article 14, Entry 31 List II, Government of India Act 1935, Repugnancy, Equality Before Law.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgement Cause Title:
A. S. Krishna v. State of Madras

ii) Case Number:
Criminal Appeals Nos. 20 to 23 of 1955

iii) Judgement Date:
November 28, 1956

iv) Court:
Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum:
S. R. Das C.J., Bhagwati, Venkatarama Ayyar, B.P. Sinha, and S.K. Das, JJ.

vi) Author:
Justice Venkatarama Ayyar

vii) Citation:
[1957] SCR 399

viii) Legal Provisions Involved:

• Madras Prohibition Act, 1937 (Sections 4(1), 4(2), 28, 29, 30, 31, 32)

• Government of India Act, 1935 (Section 107(1), Schedule 7 List II Entry 31)

• Constitution of India (Article 14)

• Indian Evidence Act, 1872

• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898

ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case:
None explicitly overruled.

x) Case is Related to which Law Subjects:

• Constitutional Law

• Criminal Law

• Evidence Law

• Federal Law (Legislative Competence)

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The Madras Prohibition Act, 1937 was enacted to enforce prohibition in Madras Province by criminalizing activities concerning intoxicating liquors. Certain sections authorized presumption of guilt and special powers for search and arrest. Upon being prosecuted under these provisions, the appellants challenged the Act’s validity under the Government of India Act, 1935, and the Indian Constitution, asserting that these provisions conflicted with federal laws and fundamental rights​.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The appellants were arrested for possessing and consuming liquor at a private premises in Madras. Foreign liquor and glasses containing whisky and soda were recovered. They were charged under Sections 4(1)(a), 4(1)(j), and 4(1)(k) of the Madras Prohibition Act. The appellants filed an application asserting that the Act’s provisions regarding presumptions and police powers violated the constitutional safeguards and federal structure​.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i) Whether Sections 4(2) and 28 to 32 of the Madras Prohibition Act, 1937 were unconstitutional for repugnancy under Section 107(1) of the Government of India Act, 1935?

ii) Whether Section 4(2) of the Act was violative of the right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India?

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The counsels for Petitioner / Appellant submitted that:

They argued that Section 4(2) deals with rules of evidence falling under Entry 5 of the Concurrent List and Sections 28-32 dealt with criminal procedure falling under Entry 2 of the Concurrent List, thereby making them subject to Central law precedence under Section 107 of the Government of India Act, 1935​. They relied on American cases like William N. McFarland v. American Sugar Refining Company, 241 U.S. 79, asserting that unreasonable presumptions violated the principle of equality before law​.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The counsels for Respondent submitted that:

The State of Madras contended that the entire Prohibition Act, including Sections 4(2) and 28-32, related to intoxicating liquors, a topic exclusively reserved for the provincial legislature under Entry 31 of List II. They stressed the applicability of the “pith and substance” doctrine to validate the Act despite incidental encroachments​. They cited Subrahmanyan Chettiar v. Muttuswami Goundan, (1940) F.C.R. 188, and Prafulla Kumar Mukherjee v. Bank of Commerce Ltd., (1947) 74 I.A. 23​.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

i)

• Section 107(1) of the Government of India Act, 1935 – Dealt with repugnancy between federal and provincial laws.

• Article 14 of the Constitution of India – Ensured equality before law and equal protection of laws.

• Entry 31 of List II Schedule 7 Government of India Act, 1935 – Covered production, possession, and sale of intoxicating liquors.

I) JUDGEMENT

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

The Court held that the true character of the impugned legislation fell squarely within Entry 31 List II and was valid​. Even though sections involved presumptions and procedure, they were ancillary and did not constitute independent legislation on evidence or criminal procedure. Therefore, the question of repugnancy under Section 107(1) did not arise. The presumption under Section 4(2) was rationally connected to the offences under Section 4(1), thus not violative of Article 14​.

b. OBITER DICTA 

The Court emphasized that legislative entries must be construed liberally and that statutes must be examined as a whole using the “pith and substance” doctrine, rather than by dissecting into individual sections​.

c. GUIDELINES 

• Legislative competency must be assessed based on the statute’s main objective.

• Incidental encroachment into another list will not invalidate a statute.

• Presumptions in criminal law must have a rational connection between the act and the fact presumed.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment underscored the importance of a holistic view when examining legislative competence under a federal constitution. It cemented the “pith and substance” doctrine in Indian constitutional law. The ruling permitted certain presumptions in criminal statutes provided they had rational justification, aligning with international constitutional practices​. It fortified state authority on matters within their exclusive domain, a necessary element in preserving the autonomy of federal units.

K) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

1. Subrahmanyan Chettiar v. Muttuswami Goundan, (1940) F.C.R. 188.

2. Prafulla Kumar Mukherjee v. Bank of Commerce Ltd., (1947) 74 I.A. 23.

3. Lakhi Narayan Das v. Province of Bihar, (1949) F.C.R. 693.

4. William N. McFarland v. American Sugar Refining Company, 241 U.S. 79.

5. Albert J. Adams v. People of the State of New York, 192 U.S. 585.

6. Robert Hawes v. State of Georgia, 258 U.S. 1.

b. Important Statutes Referred

1. Madras Prohibition Act, 1937

2. Government of India Act, 1935

3. Constitution of India

4. Indian Evidence Act, 1872

5. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898