Page 89 - GSTL_2nd July 2020 _Vol 38_Part 1

2020 ] TVL. TANSTONNELSTORY AFCONS v. UNION OF INDIA 7
sions, unless compelled by their language, in such a manner as would
involve its unconstitutionality, Since the legislature of the rule making
authority is presumed to enact a law which does not contravene or vi-
olate the constitutional provisions. Therefore, there is a presumption
in favour of constitutionality of a legislation or statutory rule unless ex
facie it violates the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the
constitution.”
(viii) In Peoples Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India reported in 2004
(2) SCC 476, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that a statute carries
with it a presumption of constitutionality and such a presumption
extends also to a law which has been enacted for imposing reasona-
ble restrictions in the fundamental right. It is further held that a fur-
ther presumption may also be drawn that the statutory authority
would not exercise the power arbitrarily.
(ix) In Karnataka Bank Limited v. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in
(2008) 2 SCC 254, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows :
“19. The rules that guide the constitutional courts in dis-
charging their solemn duty to declare laws passed by a legislature un-
constitutional are well known. There is always a presumption in fa-
vour of constitutionality, and a law will not be declared unconstitu-
tional unless the case is so clear as to be free from doubt; to doubt the
constitutionality of a law is to resolve it in favour of its validity”.
Where the validity of a statute is questioned and there are two inter-
pretations, one of which would make the law valid and the other void,
the former must be preferred and the validity of law upheld. In pro-
nouncing on the constitutional validity of a statute, the Court is not
concerned with the wisdom or unwisdom, the justice or injustice of the
law. If that which is passed into law is within the scope of the power
conferred on a legislature and violates no restrictions on that power,
the law must be upheld whatever a Court may think of it. (See State of
Bombay v. F.N. Balsara [AIR 1951 SC 318])”
(x) In Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. v. Smt. P. Laxmi Devi report-
ed in 2008 (4) SCC 720, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered
few decisions, on the presumption in favour of the constitutionality,
as follows :
“58. The U.S. Supreme Court enunciated the principle that
there is a presumption in favour of the constitutionality of Statute, and
the burden is always upon the person who attacks it to show that there
has been a clear transgression of a constitutional provision. This view
was adopted by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Charanjit Lal
Chowdhury v. Union of India and others [AIR 1951 SC 41 (para 10)],
which observed :
“Prima facie, the argument appears to be a plausible one, but it re-
quires a careful examination, and while examining it, two principles
have to be borne in mind :
(1) that a law may be constitutional even through it
relates to a single individual, in those cases where on
account of some special circumstances or reasons ap-
plicable to him and not applicable to others, that single
individual may be treated as a class by himself;
GST LAW TIMES  2nd July 2020  89