STATE OF RAJASTHAN V. G. CHAWLA, AIR 1959 SC 544

Statue reffered :

• Section 21 of the Government of Part C States Act, 1951.

Cases referred:

• Bank of New South Wales v. The Commonwealth

Introduction-

• In the current scenario, there was a concern within the public regarding the violation of existing laws through the utilization of sound amplifiers in the state. This was the issue presented before the court for determination, involving matters of public health and significance.

• List II Entry 6 grants the State Government the power to govern the usage of amplifiers in order to discourage excessive noise. In contrast, List I Entry 31 encompasses various communication mediums such as telephony, wireless radio, telegraphs, etc., empowering the Union Government to enact laws concerning the utilization of amplifiers.

• The Court decreed that the use of amplifiers does not fall under the purview of List I Entry 31. The report specifies that although amplifiers are categorized as communication and broadcasting devices, it is the responsibility of the state government, rather than the central government, to legislate on this matter based on the essence and core of the law.

Facts of the case- 

• The Ajmer (Sound Amplifiers Control) Act of 1952 was passed by the Ajmer Legislative Assembly. This Assembly, empowered by Section 21 of the Government of Part C States Act of 1951, had the authority to create laws for the entire State or specific parts of it concerning matters listed in the State List or Concurrent List.
•  The respondents faced prosecution under Section 3 of this Act for violating permit conditions related to sound amplifier usage. Following a reference under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the judicial Commissioner of Ajmer determined that the Act pertained to Entry No. 31 of the Union List rather than Entry No. 6 of the State List, as argued by the State. Consequently, the Act was considered ultra vires the State Legislature.

• It was concluded that the core and substance of the challenged Act focused on regulating amplifier usage in the interest of health and tranquillity. 

• Hence, the Act primarily fell under the powers granted by Entry No. 6 and potentially Entry No. 1 of the State List, and it did not fall within Entry No. 31 of the Union List, even though the regulated device, the amplifier, is used for broadcasting or communication. Consequently, the Act was within the legislative authority of the State and was not ultra vires.

• The Ajmer (Sound Amplifiers Control) Act of 1952 was passed by the Ajmer Legislative Assembly. This Assembly, empowered by Section 21 of the Government of Part C States Act of 1951, had the authority to create laws for the entire State or specific parts of it concerning matters listed in the State List or Concurrent List. 

• The respondents faced prosecution under Section 3 of this Act for violating permit conditions related to sound amplifier usage. Following a reference under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the judicial Commissioner of Ajmer determined that the Act pertained to Entry No. 31 of the Union List rather than Entry No. 6 of the State List, as argued by the State. Consequently, the Act was considered ultra vires the State Legislature.

• It was concluded that the core and substance of the challenged Act focused on regulating amplifier usage in the interest of health and tranquillity. 

• Hence, the Act primarily fell under the powers granted by Entry No. 6 and potentially Entry No. 1 of the State List, and it did not fall within Entry No. 31 of the Union List, even though the regulated device, the amplifier, is used for broadcasting or communication. Consequently, the Act was within the legislative authority of the State and was not ultra vires.

Issue:

• “Is it uncertain whether the Ajmer (Sound Amplifiers Control) Act of 1952, passed by the Ajmer Legislative Assembly, rightfully falls under Entry No. 6 of the State List, or does it actually pertain to Entry No. 31 of the Union List, as determined by the judicial Commissioner of Ajmer?”

Arguments:

The Petitioner contended that

• The Petitioner contended that the core and substance of the challenged Act focused on regulating amplifier usage in the interest of health and tranquillity. Consequently, the Act primarily fell under the powers granted by Entry No. 6 and potentially Entry No. 1 of the State List, rather than Entry No. 31 of the Union List, which was argued by the State. Therefore, the Act was within the legislative authority of the State and was not ultra vires.

The Respondent maintained the following objections that

• The Act was determined by the judicial Commissioner of Ajmer to pertain to Entry No. 31 of the Union List rather than Entry No. 6 of the State List, as argued by the State.

• The core and substance of the Act were found to primarily focus on regulating amplifier usage in the interest of health and tranquility.

• Consequently, it was concluded that the Act fell within the legislative authority of the State and was not ultra vires.

.Judgement:

                            “The Appeal is allowed”

• This appeal was preferred by the State of Ajmer, but after the reorganisation of States, the State of Rajasthan stands substituted for the former State. It was filed against the decision of the Judicial Commissioner of Ajmer, who certified the case as fit for appeal to this 

Court under Art. 132 of the Constitution. 

• The Ajmer Legislative Assembly enacted the Ajmer (Sound Amplifiers Control) Act, 1952 (Ajmer III of 1952) (hereinafter called the Act).

• which received the assent of the President on March 9, 1953. This Act was successfully impugned by the respondents before the learned Judicial Commissioner, who held that it was in excess of the powers conferred on the State Legislature under S. 21 of the Government of Part C States Act, 1951(49 of 1951), and therefore ultra vires the State Legislature. 

• The respondents (who were absent at the hearing) were prosecuted under S. 3 of the Act for breach of the first two conditions of the permit granted to the first respondent to use sound amplifiers on May 15 and 16, 1954. 

• These amplifiers, it was alleged against them, were so tuned as to be audible beyond 30 years (condition No. 1) and were placed at a height of more than 6 feet from the ground (condition No.2). 

• The second respondent was at the time of the breach, operating the sound amplifiers for the Sammelan, for which permission was obtained.

Conclusion:

• In the case of State of Rajasthan v. G. Chawla, it was determined by the Court that the State Legislature’s Act, which imposed restrictions on the use of sound amplifiers, was primarily covered by Entry 6, List II, pertaining to “Public health and sanitation.” The authority to legislate concerning public health encompasses the authority to control the use of amplifiers when such usage, by disrupting the comfort and obligations of others, becomes a clear nuisance. Entry 31 in the Union List does not encompass this, despite the amplifier’s role as a broadcasting and communication device. The legislation, in essence, falls under the jurisdiction of the State, and it remains valid even if it incidentally affects broadcasting or communication matters.

Drafted by:  Jhalak Varshney, Lloyd Law college, Greater Noida

Admin