# T. M. KANNIYAN v. INCOME·TAX OFFICER, PONDICHERRY AND ANR - **Citation:** [1968] 2 S.C.R. 103 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1967-10-30 - **Bench:** K. N. Wanchoo, R. S. Bachawat, V. Ramaswami, G. K. Mitter, K. S. Hegde - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/t-m-kanniyan-v-income-tax-officer-pondicherry-and-anr-4296 - **Pages:** 9 ## Headnote Constitution of India, Articles 240(1) and Proviso,, 246--Power of President to 111ake Regulation for Unlon territories, scope ·of-"Pepce, progress a1td good governn1erit:', 111eaning of-Taxation Laws (Extension to Union Territories) Regulation (3 of 1963)-General Clauses Act, 1897, s. 3(58)-D.efinition of "State" Including Union territories if rep1111nant to the subject and context of Ari, 246. Parliament enacted the Pondicherry Administration Act. 1962, which provided that all laws in ·force immediately before August 19, 1962, 1when Pondicherry became a Union territory, were to continue to b-~ in force until amended or repealed by a competent 1egis1ature or other competent authority. The President, in exercise of the powers conferred on him by Art. 240 of the Constitution to ·make regulations for the "pea~e. progress and good government" of the Union territories promulgated the Tax Laws (Extension to Union Territories) Regulafon. 1963. By this Regulation the laws in force in relation to income tax in the Union territory of Pondicherry were repealed J.nd tJ:ie Indian Incometax Act, 1961 was made applicable. The petitioners challenged the, vires of t!..te Regulation. HELD : The Regulation is valid . . The power of the President to make regulations under Art. 240 is not limited to the subject of law and order. Authority to make regulation~ for "peace, progress and good government" is a common form of grant of legislative power and the express1on ".peace, progress and good· government" is of very wide import giving wide discretion to the authority empowered to pass laws for such purposes. The President can make-- regulations with respect· to a Union territory occupying the same field on which Parliament can· also make laws. Such a reguiation may repeal or amend .any .Act made by Parliarrient or any existing law which "is for the time being applicable to the Union terr;tory and when promulgated has the same force and effect as an Act of Parliament wh'.ch applies to· to that territory. [!07E-!08D] Riel v. Queen, [1865) 10 AC. 675, Chenard and Co. v. Joachim Ari"ses and fees which immediately before August 19, 1962 were being lawfully levied would continue to be levied in Pondicherry and to be applied for the same purposes, until other provision was made by a competent legislature or other competent authorit}. After the passing of this Act, the petitioners continued to be subject to the existing French laws relating to incon:e-tax. On C · March 30, 1963, the President in the exercise of the powers conferred on him by Art. 240 of the Constitution promulgated the impugned Regulation No. 3 of 1963. The Regulation ex.tended certain Indian Acts relating to taxation to the Union territories mentioned therein. Section 3 ( 2) of the Regulation extended the Income-tax Act. 1961, subject to tbe modifications mentioned in D Part II of the Schedule, to Pondicherry as from April 1, 1963. Section 4( 1) provided that any law in force in Pondicherry ·corresponding to the Income-tax Act, 1961 would stand repealed on April 1, 1963. The petitioners carry on busine.>s at Pondicherry and are being assessed to inccme-tax under the Income-tax Act. 1961. They have filed ~he present writ petitions asking for a decE laration that the Tncome-taic Act, 1961 was not legally extended to Pondicherry and a direction prohibiting the respondents from implementing that Act in relation to Pondicherry. In the Constitution of India as originally enacted, India was declared to be a Union of States, [Art. I ( 1)]. The States and their territories were specified in Parts A, B and C of the First F Schedule [Art. 1 (2) ]. The territory of India consisted of the territories of the States, the territories specified in Part D of thcFirst Schedule (Andaman and Nicobar Islands) and such other territories as may be acquired, [Art. I (3) ]. As originally enacted .. Part VI of the Constitution dealt with Part A States, Part VII dealt with Part B States, Part VIII dealt with Part C States and G Part IX dealt with the territories specified in r'art D of the First Schedule. The Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act passed on October 19, 1956 altered the scheme of division of India into A, B and C States and the territories mentioned in Part D of the First Schedule. Article 1 and the First Schedu1c were amended so that the territory of India would comprise the territories of the H States, the Union territories specified in the First Schedule and such other territories as may be acquired. By cl. 30 added to Art.. 366, "Union territory" was defined to mean any Union territory specified in the First Schedule anc lerms : "239A. (I) Parliament may by Jaw create for any of the Union territories of Himachal Pradesh, Manipur, Tripura, Goa, Daman and Diu, and Pondicherry- ( a) a body, whether elected or partly nominated and partly elected, to function as a Legislature for lite Union territory, or ( b) a Council of Ministers, or both with such constitution, powers and functions, in each ca~c. as may be specified in the law. (2) Any such law as is referred to in clause (1) shall not be deemed to be an amendment of tllis Constitution for the purposes of article 368 notwithstanding that it contains any provision which amends or has the effect of amending tllis Constitution. A B c D E F G H A B c D E F G H KANNIYAN v. l.T.O. (Bachawat, I.) 240. ( l) The President may make regulations for the peace, progress and good government of the Union territory of- ( a) the Andaman and Nicobar Islands; (b) the Laccadive, Minicoy and Amindivi Islands; (c) Dadra and Nagar Haveli; (d) Gao, Daman and .Diu; ( e) Pondicherry: Provided that when any body is created under article 239A to function as a Legislature for the Union terri· tory of Goa, Daman and Diu or Pondicherry, the President shall not make any regulation for the peace, progress and good government of that Union territory with effect from the date appointed for the first meeting of the Legislature. (2) Any regulation so made may repeal or amend any Act made by Parliament or any existing law which is for the time being applicable to the Union territory and, when promulgated by the President, shall have the same force and ·effect as an Act of Parliament which applies to that territory." 107 Regulation No. 3 of 1963 was made by the President in. the exercise of the power conferred on him to make regulations for the peace, progress and good government of the Union territories. The contention that under Art. 240 the President can make regulations limited to the subject of law and order only cannot be accepted. The grant of legislative power to make laws, regulations or ordinances for British dependencies has long been expressed in the common form of that of making laws, regulations or ordinances for "peace and good government" of the territory or similar objects such as "pe:M;c, order and good government", "peace, welfare and good government" and "peace, progress and good government" of the territory. Instances of this common form of grant of legislative power to legislatures and authoritie~ in India arc s. 42 of the Indian Councils Act, 1861, ss. 71, 72, BOA of the Government of India Act, 1915, s. 72 of the ninth Schedule and s. 92(2) of the Government of India Act, .1935. Such a po·wer was held to authorise the utmost discretion of enactment for the attainment of peace, order and good government of the territory and a Court will not enquire whether any particular enactment made in the exercise of this power, in fact, promotes those objects, Riel v. Queen('), Chenard and Co. v. Joachim Arissol(2). The words "peace, order and good government.. and (I} [188!>] JO A.C. 675, 678-679. 12) [1949] A. C. 127, 132. '· 108 Slll'RFME COURT REP01<»S (1968] 2 SCR. similar expressions arc words of very ,,,;de import giving wide dis cretion to the authority empowered to pass laws· for such purposes, Attomey-Genera/ for Saska1c/1c1rnn v Canadian Pacific Ry Co.('). King Emperor v. /Jcnoari Lal Sar111a(') In Jogendra Nara.mn Deb v. Debendra Narayan Ruy(") Sir George Rankin said that the words have reference to the scope and not to the merits of the legislation. In Girindra Nath Banerjee v. Bire11dra Nmli Pal( 1 ), he said that •·these words are used because they arc words of the widest significance and it is not open to a Court of Jaw to consider with regard to any particular piece of legislation whether in fact it is meritorious in the sense that 11 will conduce to .reace or to good government. It is sufficient that they are words which are intended to give, subject to the restrictions of the Act, a legislating power to the body which it invests with that authority." Article 240 of the Constitution confers on the Prcsidcnt 1a general power of making regulations for the peace, progress and good government of the specified Union tcrritorie>. In exercise of this power. the President may make a regulation repealing or amending any Ac~ made by Parliament or any existing Jaw which is for the time being applic;i.blc to the Union territory. The regulation when promulgated by the President has the sa111e ftlfce and effect as an Act of Parliament which applies to that territory. The President can thus make regulations on all subiccts 0•1 which Parlia ment can make law, for the territory. Parliament has plci;ary power to legislate [or the Union territories with regard to any sub jeer. With regard to Union territories there is no distribution of legislative power. Article 246( 4) enacLs that "Parliament has power to make laws with respect tc any matter for any part of the territory of India not included in a State notwithstanding that such matter is a matter enumerated in the State List." In R. K. Se11 v. Union(") it was pointed out that having regard to Art. 367, the definition of "State" ins. 3(58) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 applies for the interpretation of the Constitution unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or contc.\t. Under. that definition, the expression "State" as respects any period after the commencement of the Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act. 1956 "shall mean a State specified in the First Schedule to the Constitution and shall include a Union territory ~ But this incltLsive deCTnition is repugnant to the subject and context of Art. 246. 1l1crc, the expression "State" means the States ~pccificd in the First Schedule. 1bere is a distribution of legislati\'I} power between Parliament and the legislatures of the States. Exclusive power to legislate with re.spec! to the matters enumerated in the State List is assigned to the legislatures of the State5 esta -----·-·· (I) (1•53J A.C. 594, 6t3-6!4. (2) [C9t4J L.R. 721.A. 57. 72. (3) [l94Z] L.R. 6S I.A. 76, 90. (4) [1927] I.LR. 54 Cal. 727, 73~. (5) 11966) I S.C.R. 430, 433. ) A B c D E F G II A B c ll KANNlYAN v. I. T.O. ( Bachawat, J.) 109 blishcd by Part '-':. fhere is no distribution of legislative power with respect to Union territodes. That is :-VhY Parliament is given power by Art. 246 ( 4) to_ legislate ev~n w1~h respe~t. to ~rntte~ enumerated in the State List. If the mclustve defimt10n of State in s: 3 ( 58) of the Gene 0ral Clauses Act were to apply to Art. 246 ( 4), Parliament would have no power to legislate for the Union territories with respect to matters enumerated in the State List and until a legislature empowered to legislate on those matters is created under Art. 239A for the Union territories, there would be no legislature competent to legislate on those mattel"l!; moreover, for certain territories such as the Andaman and Nicobar Islands no legislll!ure can be created under Art. 239A, and for such territories. there can be no authority competent to legislate with respect to matters enumerated in the State List. Such a construction is repugnant to the subject and context of Art. 246. It follows that in view of Art. 246(4), Parliament has plenary. powers to make laws for Union territories on all matters. Parliament can by law extend the Income-tax Act, 1961 to a Union:'territory with such modifications as it thinks fit. The President fo the exercise· of his powers under Art. 240 can make regulations which have the same force and effect as an Act of Pariiament which applies to that territory. Tile President can therefore by regulation made under Art.. 240 extend the Income-tax Act. 196 l to that territory with such mOdifications as he thinks fit. E The President can thus make regulations under Art. 240 with respect to a Union territory occupying the same field on which Parliament can also make laws, We are not impressed by the argument that such overlapping of powers would lead to a clash between the President and Parliament. The Union territories are centrally administered through the Prcsidem acting through an F 'administrator. In the cabinet system of Government the President acts on the advice of the Ministers who are responsible to Parliament. · G H The proviso to Art. 240 (1) Jays down the condition for the ccsser of power of the President to make regulations under Art. 240( I). The power of the President to make regulations for the Union territory of Goa, Daman and Diu or Pondicherry ceases when a legislature for the territory is created with effect from the date appointed for the first meeting of the legislature, But unti.1 such a legislature is created, the President retains his full power to make regulations for those territories. The proviso does not net as a fetter on the general power of the President to make regulations for the Union territory while no legislature for that territory is brought into existence. The proviso docs not enact, as is suggested ·by the petitioners, that the power of the Presid~nt is confined 11 0 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1968] 2 S.C.R. to making laws with respcci to the matters enumerated in the State List and the Concurrent List. The argument is that a legislature created under Art. 239A can be authorised to pass laws with respect to those matters only and having regard to the proviso to Art. 240( I) the President's power to make regulations under Art. 240 is similarly circumscribed. As a matter of fact, the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963 created local le)!islatilres for the Union territories of· Himachal Pradesh, Manipur. Tripura, Goa, Daman and Diu and Pondicherry and s. 18 of the Act conferred on those legislatures power to make laws for those territories with respect to the matters enumerated in the State List or the Concurrent List. Assuming that the local legislature created under Art. 239A can be authorised to make laws with respect only to the matters enumerated in the State List or the Concurrent Li~t. it docs not follow that the power of the President to make regulations under Art. 240 is so limited. By the express words of Art. 240, the President can make regulations for the peace, progress and good government of the specified Union territories. Any regulation so made may repeal or amend any Act made by Parliament and applicable to that territory. When promulgated by the President the regulation has the same force and effect as an Act of Parliament applicable to that territory. This general power of the President to make regulations extends to all 1aauers on which Parliament can legislate. It may be recalled that Art. 239A and the proviso to Art. 240( I) were inserted by the Constitution (Fourteenth Amendment) Act. Under Art. 240 A B e D E as it stood after the Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act and before the enactment of the Constitution (Fourteenth Amendment) Act, it could net be contended that the general pvwer of the President to make regulations under Art. 240 ( I ) was limited to matters enumerated in the State List and the Concurrent List. The position wa~ not changed by the insertion of Art. 239A and the . F proviso to Art. 240( I) by the Cons;itution (Fourteenth Amendment) Act. . Moreover, Art. 239A docs not authoris~ Parliament to create legislatures for the Union territories of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Laccadivc, Minicoy and Amindivi Islands and Dadra and Nagar Havcli. It is clear, therefore, that tile power of the President to make regulations with respect to those territories is not limited by the proviso to Art. 240( I). We arc satisfied that the proviso to Art. 240( I) on its true construction docs not fetter the power of the President to make regulations for any of the Union territories specified in Art. 240( I) including Pondicherry as long as no legislature is created for the territory. G It wa~ suggested that there is no provision for the distribution H of the income-tax attributable to Union territories and therefore the President could not extend tlic Income-tax Act, 1961 to the Union territories. If this argument were sound, ev~n Parliament .. A B c D KANNIYAN v. I.T.o. (Bachawat, 1.) Hl ~ould not extend the Income-tax Act to the Union territories. Moreover, the argument overlooks Art. 270 which shows that the income-tax attributable to Union territories forms part of the Consolidated Fund of India. It is not necessary to make any dis-- tribution of income-tax with respect to Union territories as those territories are centrally administered through the President. There is no force in the contention that the President cannot make a law with respect to income-tax in the absence of an express grant bf such a power. - There is distribution of legislative power between the Centre and the States and consequently distinct grants of taxing power a~e made in the legislative lists. With respect to Union territories, there is no distribution of legislative power. For the Union territories, Parliament has plenary poWers to make laws and the President has general powers to make regu~ lations. In the exercise of his powers under Art. 240, the Presi-, dent could make Regulation No. 3 of 1963 extending the Incornetax Act, 1961 and other laws to the Union territories. The petitions are dismissed with costs, one hearing fee. Y.P. Petitions dismissed