Decided on-: April 9, 1957
Bench: AIYYAR, T.L. VENKATARAMA DAS, SUDHI RANJAN (CJ) SINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P. DAS, S.K. GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B.
FACTS
The 1957 case of R. M. D. Chamarbaugwalla v. Union of India centers on the constitutional validity of specific provisions within the Public Gambling Act of 1867.
The petitioner contested the ban on certain games based solely on skill, arguing that this prohibition infringed upon their fundamental rights outlined in Article 19(1)(g) of the Indian Constitution. This article safeguards the right to engage in any trade, business, or profession.
ISSUES
Whether the stipulations of the Prize Competitions Act (42 of 1955) are applicable to contests demanding considerable skill, not classified as gambling, as defined in Section 2(d) of Prize Competitions Act (1955) regarding "prize competition."
If the Act is deemed applicable, the inquiry extends to whether the provisions of Section 4 and Section 5, as well as Rule 11 and 12—acknowledged as invalid—can be selectively enforced using the principle of severability, particularly in the context of competitions categorized as gambling.
JUDGMENT
The court ruled that the validity of restrictions outlined in Sections 4 and 5, along with Rules 11 and 12 of the Prize Competitions Act (42 of 1955) regarding gambling competitions, was not contestable under Article 19(6) of the Constitution. The court had earlier established, in The State of Bombay v. R. M. D. Chamarbaugwala (1957) S.C.R. 874, that gambling fell outside the scope of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
Examining the Prize Competitions Act's definition of 'prize competition' in Section 2(d), the court concluded that it explicitly included only gambling competitions. The court stressed the need to interpret legislative enactments considering factors like legislative history, purpose, and the mischief they aim to address, citing The Bengal Immunity Company Limited v. The State of Bihar and others (1955) 2 S.C.R. 603.
Even if one were to assume that the definition encompassed skill-based competitions, the court held that the restrictions in Sections 4 and 5, along with Rules 11 and 12, were severable. This allowed the restrictions to be applied separately to gambling competitions and those reliant on skill.
The court clarified that the principle of severability applies to laws enacted by legislatures with limited legislative powers, as in a Federal Union. It rejected the notion that this principle only applies when the legislature exceeds its powers, citing cases like In re Hindu Women’s Rights to Property Act (1941) F.C.R. 12, The State of Bombay and another v. F.N. Balsara (1951) S.C.R. 682, and The State of Bombay and another v. The United Motors (India) Ltd. and others (1953) S.C.R. 106.
The court distinguished its findings from cases like Punjab Province v. Daulat Singh and others (1946) F.C.R. 1, Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras (1950) S.C.R. 594, and Chintaman Rao v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1950) S.C.R. 759.
Comments