The presumption of constitutionality requires that legislation is assumed valid unless it clearly infringes fundamental rights. Courts are inclined to interpret statutes harmoniously with the constitution, favoring interpretations that uphold their validity. However, this presumption has limitations and does not apply in cases of gross constitutional violations.

1. Presumption of
Constitutionality
Prof. (Dr.) S. P. Srivastava
Department of Law
CUSB, Gaya

2. Meaning of This Rule
• This rule mandates validity of the law it involves presumption of intra
virus (within the legal power or authority of an individual) and
constitutionality of the statutes. There shall be 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.
• If the provisions of a law or the rule is construed in such a way as
would make it consistent with the Constitution and another
interpretation would render the provision or the rule
unconstitutional, the Court would lean in favour of the former
construction. ” (“ex facie” meaning ‘on the face’)

3. Scope
• It is a method of allocating and heightening the burden of legal
persuasion, requiring the party challenging the statute to make a legal
argument so convincing that unconstitutionality is shown "beyond a
reasonable doubt."
• legislation will be upheld if any "rational basis' for its passage can be
imagined, unless it violates a "fundamental" right-and liberty has not
been deemed by the Court to be a fundamental right.
• If on one construction in a given statute will become ultra vires the
power of the legislature whereas on another construction, which may be
open, the statute remains effective and operative, the Court will prefer
the latter, on the ground that the Legislature is presumed not to have
intended an excess of its jurisdiction. (Chiranjitlal Chowdhary v. Union of
India, AIR 1951 SC 4.)
• The presumption of constitutionality is not a rule of evidence.
(Presumption of Regularity is rule of Evidence)
• The presumption of constitutionality does not deal with factual proof,
because constitutionality is a question of law, not of fact.

4. Continued:
• Good faith and knowledge of the existing conditions on the part of a
legislature are to be presumed,
• If there is nothing on the face of law or the surrounding
circumstances brought to the notice of the court on which the
classification may be reasonably be regarded as based, the
presumption of constitutionality cannot be carried to the extent of
always holding that there must be some undisclosed and unknown
reasons for subjecting certain individuals or corporations to hostile or
discriminatory legislation. (Ram Prasad v. State of Bihar)

5. Background of Evolution of this Doctrine
• The doctrine of presumption of constitutionality has come up or
rather originated as a necessary evil;
(a) to avoid a head on collision of the judiciary with the legislature
on every statute challenged,
(b) to practically reflect the equal standing of the various organs
of the state,
(c) to disallow frivolous and frolic challenges made to the statutes on
diverse grounds, without a legal backing or actual challenge to the
constitutionality of the statute.

6. Why
• The reason for such an assertion is the fact that the Court presumes
that the Constitution granted plenary powers to legislature.
• An attribute of the respect which the judiciary, the unelected branch
of government, accords to the acts of the elected representatives of
the people’.(J. Murphy)
• The framers chose to trust the ‘democratic process’ — as opposed to
the judiciary — to protect individual rights. (Dawson)

7. How it is applied
• The Statute and the Rule or the Regulation must be held to be
constitutionally valid unless and until it is established they violate any
specific provision of the Constitution.
• It is the duty of the Court to harmoniously construe different
provisions of any Act or Rule or Regulation, if possible, and to sustain
the same rather than striking down the provisions out right

8. Judicial Approach in India
• In ML Kamra v New India Assurance, AIR 1992 SC1072
Justice K Ramaswamy said: “The court ought not to interpret the
statutory provisions, 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 violate 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. If the provisions of a law or the rule is
construed in such a way as would make it consistent with the
Constitution and another interpretation would render the provision or
the rule unconstitutional, the Court would lean in favour of the former
construction. ”

9. • K Anjaiah vs K. Chandraiah’ (1998) 3 SCC 218, Justices G B
Pattanaik and M Srinivasan observed:
• “It is a cardinal principle of construction that the Statute and the
Rule or the Regulation must be held to be constitutionally valid
unless and until it is established they violate any specific provision of
the Constitution. Further it is the duty of the Court to harmoniously
construe different provisions of any Act or Rule or Regulation, if
possible, and to sustain the same rather than striking down the
provisions out right.”

10. • ‘Githa Hariharan v RBI’ (1999) 2 SCC 228, Justice U Banerjee said,
• “…It is to be noted that validity of a legislation is to be presumed and
efforts should always be there on the part of the law courts in the
matter of retention of the legislation in the statute book rather than
scrapping it and it is only in the event of gross violation of
constitutional sanctions that law courts would be within its
jurisdiction to declare the legislative enactment to be an invalid piece
of legislation and not otherwise…”

11. Limitations to the doctrine
• The presumption is not absolute, however, and does not stand when
there is a gross violation of the Constitution. There are limitations to
the doctrine.
• In ‘NDMC v State of Punjab’ (1996)-The Bench observed, “The
Doctrine of Presumption of Constitutionality of Legislations is not one
of infinite application; it has recognised limitations… this Court has
consistently followed a policy of not putting an unnatural and forced
meaning on the words that have been used by the legislature in the
search for an interpretation which would save the statutory
provisions. We are not “free to stretch or pervert the language of the
enactment in the interests of any legal or Constitutional theory”…”

12. Leading Cases
• Ram Prasad v. State of Bihar, 1963 SCR 1129, Supreme Court held
that the Sathi Land Restoration Act, 1950 was void as it singled out a
particular individual from his fellow subjects and visited him with a
disability which was not imposed on others. Further court held that
the Act was highly discriminatory.

13. All Saints High School v. State of A.P, (1980) 2
SCC 478
• The Supreme Court held,
“It is a well settled rule that in interpreting the provisions of a statute
the court will presume that the legislation was intended to be intra
vires and also reasonable.
The enactment must be interpreted consistent with the presumption
which imputes to the legislature an intention of limiting the direct
operation of an enactment to the extent that is permissible.”

14. Minerva Mills v. Union of India, (1980) 3 SCC
625
• SC held:
“principle of reading down an impugned provision to save it from
unconstitutionality would not apply if the clear intention behind it is
unconstitutional. Thus it is clear that the presumption of
constitutionality is only a rebuttable presumption and not a
conclusive one. “

15. State of Bihar v. Bihar Distillery Ltd. (1997) 2
SCC 453
• The court should try to sustain its validity to the extent possible. It
should strike down the enactment only when it is not possible to
sustain it. The court should not approach the enactment with a view
to pick holes or to search for defects of drafting, much less
inexactitude of language employed. Indeed, any such defects of
drafting should be ironed out as part of the attempt to sustain the
validity/constitutionality of the enactment. After all, an Act made by
the legislature represents the will of the people and that cannot be
lightly interfered with.
• The unconstitutionality must be plainly and clearly established before
an enactment is declared as void.

16. B.R.Enterprises v State of U.P, (1999) 9 SCC
700.
• Where there are two possible interpretations, one invalidating the
law and the other upholding, the latter should be adopted.
• “First attempt should be made by the courts to uphold the charged
provisions and not to invalidate it merely because one of the possible
interpretation leads to such a result, howsoever attractive it may be.”

17. P.U.C.L v. Union of India, (2004) 2 SCC 476.
• Such a presumption extends also in relation to a law, which has been
enacted for imposing reasonable restrictions on the fundamental
rights.