Page 87 - GSTL_2nd July 2020 _Vol 38_Part 1

2020 ] TVL. TANSTONNELSTORY AFCONS v. UNION OF INDIA 5
(e) that in order to sustain the presumption of constitutionali-
ty the Court may take into consideration matters of common
knowledge, matters of common report, the history of the times and
may assume every state of facts which can be conceived existing at the
time of legislation; and
(f) that while good faith and knowledge of the existing condi-
tions on the part of a legislature are to be presumed, if there is nothing
on the face of the law or the surrounding circumstances brought to the
notice of the Court on which the classification may reasonably be re-
garded as based, the presumption of constitutionality cannot be car-
ried to the extent of always holding that there must be some undis-
closed and unknown reasons for subjecting certain individuals or cor-
porations to hostile or discriminating legislation.”
(ii) In Mohd. Hanif Quareshi v. The State of Bihar reported in 1958 AIR
731, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows :-
“The pronouncements of this Court further establish, amongst
other things, that there is always a presumption in favour of the con-
stitutionality of an enactment and that the burden is upon him, who
attacks it, to show that there has been a clear violation of the constitu-
tional principles. The Courts, it is accepted, must presume that the leg-
islature understands and correctly appreciates the needs of its own
people, that its laws are directed to problems made manifest by expe-
rience and that its discriminations are based on adequate grounds. It
must be borne in mind that the legislature is free to recognise degrees
of harm and may confine its restrictions to those cases where the need
is deemed to be the clearest and finally that in order to sustain the pre-
sumption of constitutionality the Court may take into consideration
matters of common knowledge, matters of common report, the history
of the times and may assume every state of facts which can be con-
ceived existing at the time of legislation.”
(iii) In Mahant Moti Das v. S.P. Sahi, the Special Officer In Charge of Hindu
Religious Trust & Ors. reported in AIR 1959 SC 942, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, held as follows :
“The decisions of this Court further establish that there is a
presumption in favour of the constitutionality of an enactment and the
burden is upon him who attacks it to show that there has been a clear
transgression of the constitutional guarantee; that it must be presumed
that the legislature understands and correctly appreciates the needs of
its own people and that its laws are directed to problems made mani-
fest by experience and that its discriminations are based on adequate
grounds; and further that the legislature is free to recognise degrees of
harm and may confine its restrictions to those cases where the need is
deemed to be the clearest…..”
(iv) In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Kartar Singh reported in AIR 1964 SC
1135, the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court held
that where a party seeks to impeach the validity of a rule on the
ground of such rule offending Article 14, the burden is on him to
plead and prove infirmity. This Court said :

GST LAW TIMES  2nd July 2020  87