R.M.D. CHAMARBAUGWALLA V. UNION OF INDIA
1957 SCR 930: AIR 1957 SC 628
FACTS
The parliament had enacted the Prize Competitions Act 1955 in pursuance to the wishes of multiple states in the form of resolutions under article 252(1) of the Constitution. The Petitioners were engaged in promoting and conducting prize competitions in several states of India, and they have filed the present petitions under Article 32 questioning the validity of some of the provisions of the Act and the rules framed thereunder.
ISSUE
The issue involved that was in conflict in the present case referred to
- Whether Section 2(d) applies to competitions which involve substantial skill and are not in the nature of gambling;
- If issue 1 holds true, can the Sections 4 and 5 and Rules 11 and 12 on the principle of severability be enforced against competitions which are in the nature of gambling
RULE
The legislation in question is the Prize Competitions Act 1955 and the object of the legislation, as clearly mentioned in the preamble, is to provide for the control and regulation of prize competitions. As per its history, its genesis was to be found in the Bombay Lotteries and Prize Competitions Control and Tax Act (Bom 54 of 1948) mainly with the object of controlling and taxing lotteries and prize competitions within the Province of Bombay, and as originally enacted, it applied only to competitions conducted within the Province of Bombay. But eventually it was adopted by other states also. Following are some provisions that are relevant for the current discussion. Section 2(d) of the Act defines “prize competition” as meaning “any competition (whether called a cross-word prize competition, a missing-word prize competition, a picture prize competition or by any other name), in which prizes are offered for the solution of any puzzle based upon the building up, arrangement, combination or permutation of letters, words or figures.” Sections 4 and 5 of the act were provisions that were impungued as unConstitutional. Section 7 of the Act provided that “a prize competition shall be deemed to be an unlawful prize competition unless a licence in respect of such competition has been obtained by the promoter thereof”. Section 12 imposed a tax on the amounts received in respect of competitions which had been licensed under the Act. Section 20 is related to licensing, maintaining of accounts and penalties for violation and confers power on the State Governments to frame rules for carrying out the purpose of the Act.
JUDGEMENT AND ANALYSIS
- This Hon'ble court took the assistance of a few relevant case laws before characterising its observations.
- Heydon’s case mentions “To arrive at the real meaning, it is always necessary to get an exact conception of the aim, scope and object of the whole Act. Lor Coke states (1) What was the law before the Act was passed; (2) What was the mischief or defect for which the law had not provided; (3) What remedy Parliament has appointed; and (4) The reason of the remedy”
- Bengal Immunity Company Limited v. State of Bihar states that it is imperative to regard all the factors that can be taken into account in ascertaining the intention of the legislature, such as the history of the legislation its purpose, the mischief which it intended to suppress and the other provisions of the statute, and construe the language of Section 2(d).
- This court held that Section 2(d) should be construed considering the historical background of the act and the mischief that was intended to be suppressed. Having taken such factors into consideration, there wasn’t any doubt that the State Legislatures moved the Parliament to enact a legislation under article 252 with the sole objective of controlling and regulating prize competitions of gambling nature. If the state legislatures had the intention to regulate the competitions based on skill, they would have successfully done that without resorting to special jurisdiction under article 252.
- Further, the use of the word “Control” in the resolutions of the state legislatures wouldn’t seem appropriate if it was intended that the Parliament should legislate on competitions involving skill.
- It was concluded that the impugned provisions applied by virtue of Section 2(d) to all kinds of competitions, was severable in their application to competitions in which success does not depend to any substantial extent on skill. Therefore, the competitions which were sought to be controlled and regulated were only those wherein the success did not depend on any degree of skill.