Holding

Sections 13‑16 of MCOCA are constitutionally valid, while the words “or under any other Act” in section 21(5) are struck down as unconstitutional.

Summary

The State of Maharashtra appealed against a Bombay High Court judgment that had struck down sections 13‑16 of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA) and the words “or under any other Act” in section 21(5) as unconstitutional. The Supreme Court examined whether the State could legislate on interception of communications and other provisions of MCOCA under entries in List II and List III of the Seventh Schedule, and whether such provisions encroached on the Union’s competence under Entry 31 of List I. It held that the pith and substance of MCOCA falls within the State’s legislative domain, making the incidental encroachment on the Union List permissible, and that the interception provisions are distinct from those in the Telegraph Act, 1885. The Court found the interception provisions to be a valid procedure under Article 21 and not violative of privacy, and upheld the procedural safeguards. However, it struck down the phrase “or under any other Act” in section 21(5) as an unreasonable classification violating Articles 14 and 21. Consequently, the appeal was allowed in part, confirming the validity of sections 13‑16 while modifying the bail provision.

Issues considered

The constitutional competence of the Maharashtra Legislature to enact sections 13‑16 of MCOCA under entries in List II and List III.
Whether sections 13‑16 of MCOCA violate Article 21 of the Constitution by infringing the right to privacy through interception of communications.
Whether there is repugnancy between the interception powers under MCOCA and those under the Telegraph Act, 1885, invoking Article 254.
Whether the denial of bail under section 21(5) for a person already on bail under any other Act amounts to unreasonable classification violating Article 14 and Article 21.
The adequacy of procedural safeguards in MCOCA to satisfy constitutional due‑process requirements.

Legislation cited

Indian Telegraph Act, 1885s. 5(2)
Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999s. 13, s. 14, s. 15, s. 16, s. 21(5)

Subjects

legislative competencepith and substanceinterception of communicationright to privacyArticle 21Article 14bailorganized crimeMCOCATelegraph Actfederalismrepugnancy

Judgment

0

[2008] 12 S.C.R. 1083

·---f
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA A
II.
BHARAT SHANTI LAL SHAH & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 1376-1379 of 2008)
SEPTEMBER 1, 2008
B
'
-* [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI, R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND
DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ]

Constitution of India, 1950:
Article 254 - Seventh Schedule - List I - Entry 31 - List c
.. II Entries 1 and 2, List Ill - Entries 1,2 and 12 - Provisions of
Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 authorising
interception of wire, electronic and oral communication in order
to prevent commission of organized crime or to collect
,.._ evidence to commission of such an organized crime - HELD: D
Are constitutionally valid - Grounds for interception of wire,
... electronic and ·oral communication under the provisions of
MCOCA are distinct and different from those covered bys. 5(2)
of Telegraph Act - The subjects and areas covered by two
Acts cannot be said to be identical and common - Even E
~
otherwise, when the area and subject of legislation is also
covered within purview of the Entry of State List, and Concurrent
List, incidental encroachment to an entry in the Union List will
not, in view of doctrine of pith and substance, make a law
~
invalid and such an incidental encroachment will not make F

" the legislation ultra vires the Constitution - Doctrine of Pith
and Substance - Telegraph Act, 1885- s.5(2) - Maharashtra
Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 - Interpretation of
Constitution.

-~-{
Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999: Gl
ss. 13 to 16- Constitutional validity of- HELD: Provisions
are constitutionally valid - The Act is covered under Entries
1 and 2 of List II and is also relatable to Entries 1,2 and 12 of
1083 H
1084 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R.

)---
A List Ill of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution-Provisions
are not violative of Article 21 of the Constitution - Constitution
of India, 1950-Articles 21 and 254 - Seventh Schedule, List
II Entries 1 and 2 - List Ill - Entries 1,2 and 12 - Telegraph
Act, 1885 - s. 5(2).
B s.21(5) - Restriction on granting bail - HELD: Decision
of the High Court striking down the words "or under any other
Act" occurring in sub-s. (5) of s. 21 is upheld - Provision of
*
denying a person right to seek bail under MCOCA if he was
on bail earlier for commission of an offence under any other
c Act suffers from vice of unreasonable classification -
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 14.
ss. 2(d), (e) and (f) - "Continuing unlawful activity",
"organized crime", and "organized crime syndicate" - Definition
of - HELD: There is no vagMeness in the definitions -
D
Provisions do not suffer from class legislation and are not -i
viola~ive of Article 14 of the Constitution - Constitution of ...
India, 1950 - Article 14.
ss. 3(3) and (5) - HELD: High Court has rightly observed
E· that in such penal provisions mens rea is always presumed as
.I,..
integral part unless excluded expressly or by necessary
intendment- Sub-sectionsf3)and (5) are to be read in the manner
as mentioned in the judgment - Criminal Law - Mens rea.
s. 4 - Words "at any time" - Connotation of - HELD:
F High Court has rightly held that 1hese words should be read ~
to mean at any time after coming into force of the Act and the
enactment is prospective in operation and not retrospective
- Interpretation of Statute - Prospective operation of
enactment.
G ).-~·
Interpretation of Constitution:
Entries in the Lists of Seventh Schedule to the
Constitution of India - HELD: Must receive liberal construction
inspired by a broad and general spirit and not in a narrow
H pedantic sense.
- STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. BHARAT SHANTI 1085
LAL SHAH & ORS.
~
Interpretation of statutes: A
Presumption as to constitutionality of a statute - HELD:
There is always a presumption of constitutionality in favour of
a statute and while construing the same, every legally
permissible effort should be made to keep the statute within
the competence of State legislature. B

Respondent nos. 2 and 3 were arrested under the
provisions of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime
Act, 1999 (MCOCA). They filed writ petitions before the
High Court challenging the provisions of the Act. The c
High Court struck down ss. 13 to 16 of the Act as being
beyond the legislative competence of the State
Legislature; it also struck down sub-section (5) of s.21 of
the Act, holding the same as violative of provisions of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Aggrieved, the State
D
>-- Government filed the instant appeals.
.;.
Allowing the appeals in part, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Though it is true that the State Legislature
would not have power tolegislate upon any of the matters
enumerated in the Union List but as per the doctrine of E
Pith and Substance there could not be any dispute with
regard to the fact that if it could be shown that the area
and subject of the legislation is also covered within the
purview of the entry of the State List and the Concurrent
~ List, in that event incidental encroachment to an entry in. F
the Union List will not make a law invalid and such an
incidental encroachment will not make the legislation ultra
vires the Constitution. [para 30] [1108,B-C]
A. S. Krishna v. State of Madras 1957 SCR 399; Kartar G
~ Singh v. State of Punjab (1994) 3 SCC 569; and Bharat Hydro
Power Corpn. Ltd. v. State of Assam (2004) 2 SCC 553 -
relied on.
1.2The question of repugnancy under Article 254 of
the Constitution arises only in connection with subjects H
1086 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R.

A enumerated in Concurrent List. However, mere possibility
of repugnancy will not make a State law invalid, for
repugnancy has to exist in fact and it must be shown
clearly and sufficiently that State law is repugnant to
Union law. [para 32] [1109,F-G]
B 1.3 A perusal of the relevant provisions of the
j-
Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 would
indicate that the said law authorizes interception of wire,
electronic and oral communication only if it is intended
to prevent commission of an organized crime or if it is
c intended to collect evidence to commission of such an
organized crime. Interception of wire, electronic and oral
communication with the said intent in case of urgency is
also permitted under the State Act in which case it is to
be approved by an officer not below the rank of Additional
D Director General of Police within 48 hours of occurrence
of the interception. [para 34) [1110-C-D] -i
....
1.4 The objects and reasons read with the contents
of the MCOCA would indicate that the subject matter
thereof is maintaining public order and prevention by
E·
police of commission of serious offences affecting public
order and, therefore, it will be relatable to Entry 1 and 2 of
List II. The provisions of the MCOCA when read with the
Statement of Objects and Reasons, would make it
apP,arent and establish that the grounds for interception
F of the communication under MCOCA are distinct and ,..
different from the ground covered by Section 5(2) of the
.Telegraph Act, 1885. A comparative reading of the
provisions of the Telegraph Act and the MCOCA would
establish that both the Acts deal with the subjects and
G areas which cannot be said to be identical and common. ).<:
[para 35 and 38] [1113,G-H; 1110,E-F]
Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat 2005
(4) Suppl. SCR 582 =(2005) 8 SCC 534 - followed.
H 1.5 The source of power to legislate the Maharashtra
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. BHARAT SHANTI 1087
LAL SHAH & ORS.
--4
Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 can be derived from A
Entries 1,2 of the State List and Entries 1,2 and 12 the
Concurrent List and while enacting the MCOCA the assent
of the President was also taken. Therefore, the Act cannot
be said to be beyond the legislative competence of the
~ State Legislature. The content of the Act might have B
Ji· encroached upon the scope of Entry 31 of List I, but the
same is only an incidental encroachment. As the main
purpose of the Act is within the parameter of Entries 1
and 2 of the State List the provisions of Sections 13 to 16
cannot be said to be constitutionally invalid because of c
lack of legislative competence. [para 39] [1114,C-E]
2.1 It is a well established rule of interpretation that
the Entries in the Lists of Seventh Schedule to the
Constitution of India being fields of legislation must
receive liberal construction inspired by a broad and D
r- generous spirit and not in a narrow pedantic sense. Each
~
general word should extend to all ancillary and subsidiary
matters which can fairly and reasonably be comprehended
within it. [para 24] [1103,B]
Navinchandra Mafatlal v. CIT 1955 (1) SCR 829 E
=AIR 1955 SC 58; Godfrey Phillips India Ltd. v. State of UP.
(2005) 2 sec - relied on.
2.2 It is also a cardinal rule of interpretation that there
shall always be a presumption of constitutionality in
-{ favour of a statue and while construing such statue every
F
legally permissible effort should be made to keep the
statue within the competence of State legislature. [para
25] [1104,C]
Burrakur Coal Co. Ltd. v. ·The Union of India and others G
>4
1962 1) SCR 44; CST v. Radhakrishnan (1979) 2 SCC 249;
Greater Bombay Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. United Yam Tex
(P) Ltd. & Others 2007 (4) SCR 823=(2007) 6 SCC 236; State
of Bihar v. Bihar Distillaries Limited 1996 (9) Suppl. SCR
479 =(1997) 2 sec 453 - relied on. H
1088 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R.

A 3.1 The interception of conversation though
constitutes an invasion of an individual right to privacy
but the said right can be curtailed in-accordance with the
procedure validly established by law. Thus, what the
Court is required to see is that the procedure itself must
s be fair, just and reasonable and non-orbitrary, fanciful or
oppressive. [para 44] [1116,F]
3.2 The object of the MCOCA is to prevent the organised
crime and its provisions authorize interception of wire,
electronic or oral communication only if it is intended to
C prevent commission of an organised crime or if it is intended
to colle.ct evidence to commission of such an organized
crime. The procedure authorizing such interception is also
provided therein with enough procedural safeguards. In
addition, u/s 16 of the MCOCA, provision for prohibiting and v

D punishing the unauthorized user of information acquired
by interception of wire, electronic or oral com111t1nication
has been made. Thus, as the Act contains sufficient
safeguards and also satisfies the constitutional mandate, it
cannot be said that provisions of Section 13 to 16 are
E violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. Constitutional .,
validity of Sections 13 to 16 of the MCOCA is upheld. [para
45 and 50][1116,G-H; 1117,A-B; 1118,E] r
Gobind v. State of M.P (1975) 2 SCC 148; People's
Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India 1996 (10)
F Suppl. SCR 321 =(1997) 1 SCC 301; and R. M. Malkani v.
State of Maharashtra 1973 (2) SCR 417=(1973) 1 SCC 471
- relied on.
4. The object of MCOCA is to prevent organised crime
G and, therefore, there could be reason to deny
consideration of grant of bail if one has committed a )

similar offence once again after being released on bail;
buLthe same consideration cannot be extended to a
person who <;ommits an offence under some other Act,
for commission of an offence under some other Act would (
H
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. BHARAT SHANTI 1089
LAL SHAH & ORS.
--4 not be, in any case, in consonance with the object of A
MCOCA. Therefore, a person who is on bail after being
arrested for violation of law unconnected with MCOCA,
should not be denied his right to seek bail if he is arrested
under the MCOCA, for it cannot be said that he is a habitual
offender. The provision of denying a person right to seek B
··-~
bail under MCOCA, if he was arrested earlier and was on
bail for commission of an offence under any other Act, suffers
from the vice of unreasonable classification by placing in
the same class, offences which may have nothing in
common with those under MCOCA, for the purpose of d
denying consideration of bail. The said expression and
restriction on the right of seeking bail is not even in
consonance with the object sought to be achieved by the
MCOCA and, therefore, on the face of the provisions this is
an excessive restriction. Therefore, The decision of the High
D
Court striking down the words "or under any other Act"
~ from sub-Section (5) of Section 21 of the Act is upheld. [para
~
47, 48 and 50] [1117,E-F; 1117,G-H; 1118,A-C]
5.1 Though constitutional validity of provisions of
ss. 2(d), (e) and (f) and ss. 3 and 4 of MCOCA was assailed E
but no cross-appeal was filed by any of the respondents
against the order of the High Court upholding the
constitutional validity of these provisions. Even
I otherwise, as regards ss.2(d), (e) and (f), when the
!
definitions as existing in these sub.:sections are read and F
~ understood with the object and purpose of the MCOCA
which is to make special provisions for prevention and
control of organised crime, it is clear that they are worded
to sub-serv.e and achieve the said object and purpose of
the Act. There is no vagueness in the definitions. As the
G
··>J; provisions treat all those covered by it in a like manner
and do not suffer from the vice of class legislation, they
cannot be said to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
[para 18 and 19] [1100,A; 1100,D-F]
5.2 With respect to s.3 of MCOCA, even before the H
1090 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R.

A High Court the attack was in particular in respect of the
provisions of sub-sections 3 (3) and (5) of s.3 on the
ground that the requirement of mens rea is done away
with, thus automatically rendering a person without any
intention or knowledge liable for punishment. It is well
B settled, insofar as criminal law is concerned, that in such
provisions mens rea is always presumed ~s integral part
of penal offence or the section unless it is specifically
and expressly or by necessary intendment excluded by
the legislature. No such exclusion is found in sub-sections
c (3) and (5) of s. 3. As held by the High Court, if the
provisions are read as shown in the judgment, no injury
would be caused. [para 19] [1100,F-H; 1101,A]
5.3 As far as section 4 of MCOCA is concerned, a
perusal of the enactment along with the object and
D purpose reveals that it is only prospective in operation
and not retrospective and, as rightly held by the High
Court, the words "at any time" occurring in the section
should be read to mean at any time after coming into
force of MCOCA. [para 19] [1101,E-F]
E 5.4 It is, therefore, clear that the High Court rightly
arrived at the findings that provisions of ss. 2(d), (e) and
(f) and ss. 3 and 4 of MCOCA cannot be said to be ultra
vires the Constitution. Validity of the said provisions is

F
upheld. [para 20] [1102,B] t
Case Law Reference
1955 (1) SCR 829 relied on para 24
(2005) 2 sec relied on para 24
1962 (1) SCR 44 relied on para 25
G
1979 (2) sec 249 relied on para 26
2007 (4) SCR 823 relied on para 27
1996 (9) Suppl. SCR 479 relied on para 27
H 1957 SCR 399 followed para 29
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. BHARAT SHANTI 1091
LAL SHAH & ORS. [DR. MUK,UNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]

1994 (2) SCR 375 followed para 29 A
2004 (2) sec 553 relied on para 31
2005 (4) Suppl. SCR 582 relied on para 37
1975 (3) SCR 946 relied on para 41
1996 (10) Suppl. SCR 321 relied on para 41 B
.J·
1973 (2) SCR 417 relied on para 42
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
Nos. 1376-1379 of 2008
From the final Judgment and Order dated 5.3.2003 of the
c
High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Writ Petition
,
- Nos. 27 of 2003, 1738 of 2002 & 110 of 2003 with Crl.
Application No. 1504 of 2002
Shekhar Nafade, Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure and D
Gautam Godara for the Appellant.
t-
J. D.A. Dave, U.A. Rana, Nitesh Jain (for Mis. Gagrat &
Co.), Manoj Goel, Shuvodeep Roy, Wajih Shafiq, Gopal Verma
(for Brij Bhusan) and Dr. NafisA. Siddiqui forthe Respondents.
E
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J. 1. Leave gra·nted.
2. In all these appeals the issue that falls for our
, consideration is the constitutional validity of the Maharashtra
- F
.,. ~
Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (for short the 'MCOCA'
t
or the 'Act') on the ground that the State Legislature did not
have the legislative competence to enact such a law and also
that the aforesaid law is unreasonable and is violative of the
provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
G
->.\; 3. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were arrested under the
provisions of the MCOCA and cases were registered against
them. Being aggrieved by .the aforesaid arrest and registration
of cases both of them filed separate writ petitions being Criminal
Writ Petition No. 1738/2002 and Criminal Writ Petition No. H
1092 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R.

}.---·
A 110/2003 respectively in the Bombay High Court challenging
the constitutional validity of the MCOCA, particularly the
provisions of Section 2(d), (e) and (f) and that of Sections 3, 4
and 13 to 16 and Section 21(5) of the MCOCA. Respondent
no. 1 also filed a writ petition of similar nature being Criminal
B Writ Petition No. 27/2003.
The Bombay High Court heard the above mentioned writ *-· '
petitions together and passed a commonjudgment and order
on 05.03.2003 whereby it upheld the constitutional validity of
Section 2(d), (e) and (f) and also the provisions of Sections 3
c and 4 but struck 'down Sections 13 to 16 as unconstitutional as
being beyond the legislative competence of the State
Legislature. The High Court held that the Parliament alone has
;)
the power to make law in that regard as provided for under
Entry 31 of List I of Seventh Schedule to the Constitution and
D that already the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, a Central Act was
holding the field. The High Court also ~truck down sub-section -+
(5) of Section 21 of the MCOCA holding that the same was ..
violative of provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid common order the State of
E Maharashtra has filed the present appeals.
4. Learned senior counsel appearing for the parties
advanced elaborate arguments on the aforesaid issues, but
before we deal with and discuss the same, it would be necessary
for us to refer to the relevant provisions of the concerned Central ~~
F and the State Legislations. ·
~
~

5. The Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (for short the 'Telegraph
Act') was passed as a Central Act in 1885 and the said Act
came into force on 1st October, 1885. The word 'telegraph' in
the said Act is defined to mean any appliance, instrument,
G
material or apparatus used or capable of use for transmission
or reception of signs, signals, writing, images, and sounds or
re-
intelligence of any nature by wire, visual or other elector-
magnetic emissions. By enacting Section 4 iri the said Act the
Central Government has been given exclusive privilege in·
H
-
..
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. BHARAT SHANTI 1093
LAL SHAH & ORS. [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]

' ~ establishing, maintaining and working telegraphs. The power A
to grant a licence on such conditions and in considerations of
such payments as it thinks fit, to any person to establish, maintain
or work a telegraph in any part within India is also vested with
the Central Government. Section 5 of the said Act gives power
to the Central Government as well as to the State Government B
--;it,
or any officer specifically authorized in that behalf by the Central
or the State Government to take temporary possession of any
telegrap_h established, maintained or worked by any person,
licensed under the Act, provided there is an occurrence of any
public emergency or there is a case of public safety and when c
such authority is satisfied that one such pre-condition arises
and that it is necessary to act in a case of public emergency or
:, /
maintaining of public safety. Section 5(2) of the Act provides
that on the occurrence of any public emergency, or in the interest
of public safety the Central or the State Government or any
D
officer specially authorized in that behalf by the Central or the
+-- State Government may, if satisfied that it is necessary or
j
expedient to do so in the interest of !he sovereignty and integrity
of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign
states or public order or for preventing incitement to the
commission of offence and for the reasons to be recorded in E
writing by order, direct that any message or class of messages
to or from any person or class of persons, or relating to any
particular subject, brought for transmission by or transmitted or
received by any telegraphs, shall not be transmitted, or shall be
intercepted or detained, or shall be disclosed to the Government F
making the order or an officer thereof mentioned in the order.
""'· ,s. The Telegraph Act is an existing law (as defined in
Article 366 (10) of the Constitution) with respect to the matters
enumerated in Entry 31 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the
G
Constitution. Entry 31 empowers the Central Legislature to enact
--::....\-
a law in respect of posts and telegraph, telephones, wireless,
broadcasting and other like forms of communication. The
Telegraph Act, which is an enactment passed before the
commencement of the Constitution, deals with the aforesaid
subjects enumerated in Entry 31 of List I. H

_L_
1094 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R.

A 7. The Maharashtra State Legislature enacted a State
legislation under the name of Maharashtra Control of Organised
Crime Act, 1999 which came into force on 24th February,
1999.The Statement of Objects and Reasons for enacting the
said Act reads as under:
B "Organised crime has for quite some years now come up as
a very serious threat to our society. It knows no national
boundaries and is fueled by illegal wealth generated by
contract killings, extortion, smuggling in contrabands, illegal
trade in narcotics, kidnapping for ransom, collection of
protection money and money laundering, etc. The illegal wealth
c and black money generated by the organised crime is very
huge and has serious adverse effect on our economy. It is
seen that the organised criminal syndicates make a common
cause with terrorist gangs and foster narco terrorism which
extend beyond the national boundaries. There is reason to
D believe that organised criminal gangs are operating in the
State and thus, there is immediate need to curb their activities.
-+
It is also noticed that the organised criminals make extensive
use of wire and oral communications in their criminal activities.
The interception of such communications to obtain evidence
E of the commission of crimes or to prevent their commission
is an indispensable aid to law enforcement and the
administration of justice.
2.The existing legal framework i.e. the penal and procedural
laws and the adjudicatory system are found to be rather
F inadequate to curb or control the menace of organised crime.
Government has, therefore, decided to enact a special law
with stringent and deterrent provisions including in certain
circumstances power to intercept wire, electronic or oral
communication to control the menace of the organised crime."
G According to its preamble, the said Act was enacted to
make specific provisions for prevention and control of, and for
coping with, criminal activity by organised crime syndicate or
gang and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.

8. Section 2 of the MCOCA contains the definitions. The
H
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. BHARAT SHANTI 1095
LAL SHAH & ORS. [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
~

/

1096 . ,sUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R.
,/
/
,, '
/ '!--
A m~mber of an organised crime syndicate, (iv) any person who
fs a member of an organised crime syndicate and (v) whoever
-1
holds any property derived or .obtained from commission of an
organised crime, shall be punished as provided in the said
section. Section 4 provides punishment 'for possessing
8 unaccountable wealth on behalf of a member of organised crime },,
syndicate.
1O. Sectio.n 13 of the MCOCA deals with the power of the
State Government to appoint the competent authority. As per
the said section the State Government may appoint any of its
c officer, in Home Department, not below the rank of Secretary
to the Government, to be the competent authority for the
purposes of Section 14. Section 14 empowers a police officer
not below the rank of the Superintendent.of Police supervising
the investigation of an organised crime under the aforesaid Act
D to submit an application in writing to the competent authority for 1-
an order authorizing .9r approving the interception of wire,
electronic or oral communication by the investigating officer,
when such interception may provide or has provided evidence
of any offence involving an organised crime. Sub-Sections (2)
E to (13) of Section 14 lay down the detailed procedure therefore
as also the requirements to be fulfilled before approval is
granted. Section 14, therefore, authorizes the interception of
wire,· electronic or oral communication, subject to certain
conditions and safeguards laid down therein. Section 15
F requires constitution of a review committee to review every
order passed by the competent authority under Section 14.
~
Section 16 imposes certain restrictions regarding interception
and disclosure of wire, electronic or oral communication. It
prohibits the interception and also disclosure of wire, electronic
or oral communication by any police officer except as otherwise
G L.t
specifically provided, and makes any violation of the provision
punishable.
11. There is a power of forfeiture and attachment of property
of the person convicted under MCOCA under Section 20. Sub-
H section (1) of Section 21 of the MCOCA lays down that
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. BHARAT SHANTI 1097
..(
LAL SHAH & ORS. [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
~
notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal A
Procedure, 1973 (for short "the Code") or in any other law,
every offence punishable under MCOCA shall be deemed to
be a cognizable offence within the meaning of clause (c) of
Section 2 of the Code and "cognizable case" as defined in that
clause would be construed accordingly. Sub-section (2) of B
~
Section 21 provides that Section 167 of the Code shall apply
in relation to a case involving an offence punishable under the
Act subject to certain modifications. Sub-section (5) of Section
21 provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code,
the accused would not be granted bail if it is noticed by the c
Court that he was on bail in an offence under the Act, or under
any other Act, on the date of the offence in question.
12. Mr. Shekhar Nafade, learned senior counsel appearing
for the appellant -State of Maharashtra drew our attention to the
........
abovementioned provisions of the Telegraph Act as also to the 0
I
abovementioned provisions of the MCOCA in support of his
.. submission that all the provisions of MCOCA, the constitutional
validity of which is challenged are valid. It was submitted by him
that the aforesaid provisions, namely, Section 2(d), (e) and (f)
and Sections 13 to 16 and sub-Section (5) of Section 21 E
constitutional validity of which was challenged are legal and
valid as they are covered by Entry 1 and 2 of List II of the
Seventh Schedule and also under Entry 1, 2 and 3 of List Ill of
the Seventh Schedule, which read as under:
·~ F
Entry 1 List II: Public order (but not including tile use of any
naval, military or air force or any other armed force of the
Union of any other force subject to the control of the Union
or of any contingent or unit thereof in aid of the civil power).
Entry 2 List II: Police (including railway and village police)
-~ G
subject to the provisions of entry 2A of List I.
Entry 1 List Ill: Criminal Law, including all matters included
in the Indian Penal code at the commencement of this
Constitution but excluding offences against laws with
respect to any of the matters specified in List I or List II H
\.

1098 . SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R.

A and excluding the use of naval, military or air forces or any
other armed forces of the Union in aid of the civil power.
Entry 2 List Ill: Criminal procedure, including all matters r
included· in the Code of Criminal Procedure at the
commencement of this Constitution. /

B ,~
Entry 12 List Ill: Evidence and oaths; recognition of laws,
public acts and records, and judicial proceedings.
13. It was submitted by him that the provisions of MCOCA
create and define a new offence of organised crime under
c Section 2(1) (e)which· is made punishable, under Section 3 of
the MCOCA and that to aid detection and investigation of such I

an offence and to provide evidence of any offence involving
organised crime, interception of wire, electronic and oral
communication is necessary. He submitted that' the provisions
o of Sections 13 to 16, fac;ilitate the detection and investigation ---1·
of the offence of organised crime, and the State's legislative
competence ·to enact such pJovisions ·was traceable to Entry 1
and 2 in List II and Entry ~, 2 and 12 in List Ill of Seventh
Schedule of the Constitution. He pointed out that the duty of "
E police officers is to. collect' intelligence regarding commission
of cognizable offences or plans/designs to commit su.ch
offences, to prevent the commission of offences, and to detect
a·nd apprehend offenders (See Section .23 of Police Act, 1861
and $ection 64 ofBombayJ~oliceAct, 1951). He also submitted,
that the grounds for' interception of the communication under ~-
F
the State Law are different from the grounds covered by Section
5(2) of the.Telegraph Act, inasmuch as th_e State law authorizes
the interception· as it is inten.ded ...to prevent the .commission of
an Organised crlme Of ~'? _collect the evidence Of ·SUCh an
G organised crime'.He; thef,kfore, .contented that the cons.tituti_onal ,.:._:
validity cannot be questioned on the ground of want of legislative
competence oft~e.State Legislature to enact such a provision.
14. It was further submitted that Entries in List 1; II and Ill
a
must recei~e b~oad arid~liberal construction. Reference to the
H doctrine: or
pith and substance was. also ·made.
"
ST.ATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. BHARAT SHANTI 1099
LAL SHAH & ORS. [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]

·J. 15. It was also contended that the findings recorded by A
the High Court with regard to the repugnancy of provisions of
Sections 13 to 16 of the MCOCA have been arrived at by
misconstruing the provisions of the Central· Act as also the
State Act. The learned counsel for appellant drew our attention
to the findings recorded in paragraph 48 of the impugned 8
judgment of the High Court which contains a comparative chart
,A on the basis of which the High Court has come to the conclusion
that there was repugnancy. It was pointed out that the chart
does not give a clear picture of the relevant statutory provisions
and contained several flaws·. ·· c
~ 6. Mr. Dushyant A. Dave, fparned ~enior counsel
appearing for Respondent No.1 and Mr. Manoj Goel, learned
counsel appearing for Respondent No.3, however, refuted the
aforesaid submissions while contending that the aforesaid
provisions, namely Sections 13 to 16 and sub-Section (5) of D
Section 21 are ultra vires Article 246 of the Constitution of
t- India. It was submitted by them that the subject and ttie area
" which is dealt by the MCOCA, enacted by the State Legislature
are governed and covered exclusively by Entry 31 of List I in
regard to which parliament alone has exclusive competence, E
and that being so, the said provisions enacted by a state
legislature are ultra vires the Constitution. It was also submitted
that the said provisions are not only beyond the legislative
competence of the state legislature butthey also infringe upon
the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part Ill of the F
Constitution as the said provisions are violative of Articles 14
.&'\
and 21 of the Constitution and, therefore, the said provisions
are to be declared ultra vires the Const_itution on both the counts.
17. In addition, Mr. Manoj Goel Counsel for the Respondent
No. 3 submitted that Section 2 (d), (e) and (f) and Sections 3 G
and 4 of the MCOCA are constitutionally invalid as they are
ultra virus being violative of the provisions of Article 14 of the
Constitution.

18. But we find that no cross appeal was filed by any of
H
1100 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R.

A the respondents against the order of the High Court upholding
the constitutional validity of provisions of section 2(d), (e) and
(f) and also that of Sections 3 and 4 of the MCOCA. During the
course of hearing, Mr. Goel, the counsel appearing for one of
the respondents herein tried to contend that the aforesaid
B provisions of Section 2(d), (e) and (f) of the MCOCA are
unconstitutional on the ground that they violate the requirement
of Article 13 (2) of the Constitution and that they make serious
inroads into the fundamental rights by treating unequals as
equals and are unsustainably vague. Since such issues were
c 'not specifically raised by filing an appeal and since only a passing
reference is made on the said issue in the short three page
affidavit fi!ed by the respondent No. 3, it is not necessary for us
io examine the.said issue as it was sought to be raised more
specifically in the argument stage only.
D 19. Even otherwis~ when the said definitions as existing
in Section 2 (d), (e) and (f) of the MCOCA are read and -f
understood with the object and purpose of the Act which is to
make special provisions for preven-tibn and control of organised
crime it is clear that they are worded to subserve and achieve
E the said object and purpose of the Act. There is no vagueness
as the definitions defined with clarity what it meant by continuing
unlawful activity, organised crime and also organised' crfme
·syndicate. As the provisions treat all t~ose covered by it in a
like manner and does not suffer tron:i the vice of class legisl~tion
F they cannot be said to be violati'.ie of. Article 14 of the
Constitution. With respect to Section 3 of MCOCA, even before
the High Court the attack was in particular in respect of the
provisions of Section 3 (3) and (5)· on the ground that tti~ ·
requirement of mens rea is done away with, thus automatically
G rendering a person without any intention or knowledge liable _
for punishment. It is a well.settled position of law insofar as· .
criminal law is concerned that in such provisions mens rea is
always presumed as integral part of penal offence or section
u.nless it is specifically and expressly or by necessary
intendment excluded by the legislature. No such exclusion is
H
.
_,
._,
\
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. BHARAT SHANTI 1101
LAL SHAH & ORS. [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.J

~ found in sub-sections (3) and (5) of Section 3. As held by the A
High Court, if the provisions are read in the following man1_1er"
/
no injury, as alleged, would be caused:
"3(3). Whoever (intentionally) harbours or conceals or
. attempts to harbor or conceal any member of /
ari organized
crime syndicate shall be punishable ~ith~ imprisonment B
for a term which shall not be less than five years but which
may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable
to a fine, subject to a minimum fine of rupees five lacs."
"3(5). Whoever (knowingly) holds any property derived or c
obtained from commission of an organized crime or which
has been acquired through the organized crime syndicate
funds shall be punishable with a term which shall not be
less than three years but which may extent to imprisonment
for life and shall also be liable to fine, subject tO a minimum
D ...
fine of rupees two lacs."
t
As far as section 4 of MCOCA is concerned the challenge
).
was made before the High Court on the ground that the words
"at any time" in Section 4 makes an act which was not a crime
prior to coming into force of the MCOCA, a crime, thus, making E
the provision retrospective, being violative of Article 20 of the
Constitution. A Perusal of the enactment along with the object
and purpose reveals that it is only prospective and not
retrospective and as held by the High Court the words "at any
time" should be read to mean at any time after coming in~o F
force of MCOCA, the section should be read as under:
>i
"4. Punishment for possessing unaccountable wealth on
behalf of member of organized syndicate. -If any person
on behalf of a member of an organized crime syndicate
is, or, at any time (after coming into force of this Act) has G
:.....-< been, in possession of movable or immovable property
which he can not satisfactorily account for, he shall be
punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not
be less than three years which may extent to ten years and
shall also be liable to fine, subject to a minimum fine of lrl
,-~.

..
1102 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008} 12 S.C.R.

A rupees one lac and such property shall also be liable for
attachment and forfeiture, as provided by Section 20."
20. After examining the iri'lpugned judgment in depth on
the issue of cons.titutional validity of Section 2 (d), (e) and (f) -
and also Section 3 arid 4 of MCOCA we are in accord with the
B findings arrived at by the High Court that the aforesaid
provisions cannot be said to be ultra vires the Constitution and f-,
we do not find any reason to take a different view that what is
taken by the High Court while upholding the validity of the
aforesaid provisions.
21. In the light of the aforesaid, we are required to answer
-the issues which are specifically raised before us, relating to
the constitutional validity of Sections 13 to 16 as also Section
21 (5) of MCOCA, - on the ground of lack of legislative
- -_competence and also being violative of the fundamental rights
0
guaranteed in Part Ill of the Constitution or of any other
constitutional provision.
·22. Before we proceed· to ·record our findings and
conclusions in relation to the contentions raised before us it
-E would be necessary to survey and notice some of the provisions
of Constitution and well established doctrine ~nd principle which
are relevant for the purpose of our decision.
23. Chapter 1 of part XI of the Constitution deals with the
subject of distribution of legislative powers of the Parliament
F and the legislature of the States. Article 245 of the Constitution
provides that the Parliament may make laws for the whole or
any part of the territory of India, and the Legislature of a State
may make laws for the whole or any part of the State. Article
246 of the Constitution relates to the subject matter of laws
G _made by the parliament and State Legislatures. It declares that
the Parlial'l}ent has the excrusive pow~r to make laws with
respect to any of the matter.s enumerated in List I in the Seve~th
Schedule. The Legislature of any State would have powers to
make laws with respect to any of the matters mentioned in List
H II, subject to the power of the parliament in regard to List I
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. BHARAT SHANTI 1103
LAL SHAH & ORS. [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]

~ matters and. the power of the Parliament and the State A
L~islature in respect of List Ill matters. List Ill enumerates the
matters in respect of which both Parliament and State
Legislatures h.ave power to enact laws.
24. It is a well established rule of interpretation 'that the
_entries in the list being fields of legislation must receive liberal B
A construction inspired by a broad and generous spirit and not in
a narrow pedantic sense. Each general word should extend to
all ancillary ·and subsidiary matters which can fairly and
reasonably be co.mprehended within it. In Navinchandra
Mafatlal v. CIT reported in AIR 1955 SC 58 this Court observed c
as under:
"6 .................... As pointed out by Gwyer, C.J. in United
Provinces v. Atiqa Begum (1940) FC R 110 at p. 134
none of the items in the Lists is to be read in a narrow or
D
restricted sense and that each general word should be
+ held to extend to all ancillary or subsidiary matters which
,, can fairly and reasonably be said to be comprehended in
it. It is, therefore, clear - and it is acknowledged by Chief
Justice Chagla - that in construing an entry in a List
conferring legislative powers the widest possible Et
construction according to their ordinary meaning must be
put upon the words used therein ............ The cardinal rule
of interpretation, however, is that words should be read in
their ordinary, natural and ·gramtnatical meaning subject
to this rider that in construing words in a constitutional ~
~ enactment conferring legislative power the most liberal
construction should be put upon the words so that the
same may have effect in their widest amplitude."
Similar were the observations of a five Judges' Bench of
this Court in Godfrey Phillips India Ltd. v. State of U.P., reported
G
'y
in (2005) 2 sec 515, which are as follows:
"49 ............ Where there is the possibility of legislative
overlap, courts have resolved the issue according to settled
principles of construction of entries in the legislative lists. H
1104 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R.

A 50. The first of such settled principles is that legislative ~
entries should be liberally interpreted, that none of the
items in the list is to be read in a narrow or restricted
sense and that each general word should be held to extend
to ancillary or subsidiary m~tters which can fairly and
B reasonably be said to be comprehended in it (United
Provinces v. Atiqa Begam (1940) FCR 110, Western India
Theatres Ltd. v. Cantonment Board 1959 Supp (2) SCH f-,
63, SCR at p. 69 and Elel Hotels & Investments Ltd. v.
Union of India (1989) 3 SCC 698)."
c 25. It is also a cardinal rule of interpretation that there shall
always be a presumption of constitutionality in favour of a statue
and while construing such statue every legally permissible effort
should be made to keep the statue within the competence of
State legislature. In Mis Burrakur Coal Co. Ltd. v. The Union
D of lf!dia and others reported in 1962 (1) SCR 44 this Court
held the same in the following manner:
-+
"24 ....... Where the validity of a law made by a competent .~

authority is challenged in a Court. of law that court is bound
to presume in favour of its validly. Further while considering
E the validity of the law the court will not consider itself
restricted to the pleadings of the State and would be free
to satisfy itself whether under any provision of the
Constitution the law can be sustained ....... "

F 26 ..In CST v. Radhakrishnan (1979) 2 SCC 249 this
Court while dealing with the question of constitutional validity of
~
a statute held that the presumption is always on the
constitutionality and the burden is upon the person who attacks
it to show that there has been transgression of constitutional
principles. It was held in that decision that for sustaining the
G
constitutionality of an Act, a Court may take into consideration
matters of common knowle~Qe. reports, preamble, history of ''r-f

the times, object of the legislation and all other facts which are
relevant and that it must always be presumed that the legislature
understands and correctly appreciate the need of its own people
H

:
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. BHARAT SHANTi 1105
LAL SHAH & ORS. [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]

~
and that discrimination, if any, is based on adequate grounds A
and considerations.
27. In this regard we may aiso refer to a three Judges'
Bench decision of this Court titled Greater Bombay
Cooperative Bank Ltd. v United Yarn Tex (P) Ltd. & Others
reported in (2007) 6 SCC 236. In the said decision one of the B

,,-1: issues that was raised was "whether the State Legislature is
competent to enact legislation in respect of cooperative
societies incidentally transacting business of banking, in the
light of Entry 32, List II of the Seventh Schedule of the
Constitution." While deciding the said issue reference was made c
and reliance was placed on the following passage contained in
the earlier decision of this Court in State of Bihar v Bihar
Distillaries Limited reported in (1997) 2 SCC 453, about the
nature of approach which the court should adopt while examining
the constitutional validity of a provision (vide para 85) : D
:,- "The approach of the court, while examining the challenge to
,. the constitutionality of an enactment, is to start with the
presumption of constitutionality. 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 E
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 ignored out as part of the attempt to sustain the validity/
constitutionality of the enactment. After all, an Act made by
F
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. The same approach holds good while ascertaining the
intent and purpose of an enactment or its scope and
application ....... " G
·~ 'The court must recognise the fundamental nature and
importance of legislative process and accord due regard and
deference to it, just as the legislature and the executive are
expected to show due regard and deference to the judiciary.
It cannot also be forgotten that our Constitution recognises H

\
1!

1106 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008] 12 S:C.R.

A and gives effect to the concept of equality between the three '!--
wings of the State and the concept of 'checks and balances'
inherent in such scheme."
28. One of the proven methods of examining the legislative
competence of an enactment is by the application of doctrine
B of pith and substance. This doctrine is applied when the
legislative competence of the legislature with regard to a
}---,_
particular enactment is challenged with reference to the entries
in various lists. If there is a challenge to the legislative
competence the courts will try to ascertain the pith and substance
c of such enactment on a scrutiny of the Act in question. In this
process, it is necessary for the courts to go into and examine
the true character of the enactment, its object, its scope and
effect to find out whether the enactment in question is genuinely
referable to the field of legislation allotted to the respective
D· Legislature under the constitutional scheme. The said doctrine
has come to be established in India and is recognized in various
pronouncements of this Court as also of the High Courts. Where --.+
a challenge is made to the constitutional validity of a particular "
State Act with reference to a subject mentioned in any entry in
E List I, the court has to look to the substance of the State Act and
on such analysis and examination, if it is found that in the pith
and substance, it falls under an entry in the State List but there
is only an incidental encroachment on topics in the Union List,
the State Act would not become invalid merely because there
is incidental encroachment on any of the topics in the Union
F
List.
1:
29. A five Judges' Bench of this court in the case of A.S.
Krishna v. State of Madras, reported in 1957 SCR 399, held
as under:
G "8 .......... But then, it must be remembered that we are
construing a federal Constitution. It is of the essence of such ~
a Constitution that there should be a distribution of the
legislative p.owers of the Federation between the Centre and
the Provinces. The scheme of d'istribution has varied with
H different Constitutions, but even when the Constitution
1108 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R.

y
A trenching upon matters beyond its competence i.e. on a matter
included in the list belonging to the other legislature. To say
differently, incidental encroachment is not altogether forbidden."
30. Though it is true that the State Legislature would not
have power to legislate upon any of the matters enumerated in
8 the Union List but as per the doctrine of Pith and Substance
:>-~
there could not be any dispute with regard to the fact that if it
could be shown that the area and subject of the legislation is
also covered within the purview of the entry of the State List and
the Concurrent List, in that event incidental encroachment to an
c entry in the Union List will not make a law invalid and such an
incidental encroachment will not make the legislation ultra vi res
the Constitution.
31. In Bharat Hydro Power Corpn. Ltd. v. State of Assam
(2004) 2 SCC 553 the Doctrine of pith and substance came to
D be considered, when after referring to the catena of decisions ""r
of this Court on the doctrine it is laid down as under:
"
"18. It is likely to happen from time to time that enactment
though purporting to deal with a subject in one list touches
also on a subject in another list and prima facie looks as if one
E
legislature· is impinging on the legislative field of another
legislature. This may result in a large number of statutes
being declared unconstitutional because the legislature
enacting law may appear to have legislated in a field reserved
for the other legislature. To examine whether a legislation has
F impinged on the field of other legislatures, in fact or in ~
substance, or is incidental, keeping in view the true nature of
the enactment, the courts have evolved the doctrine of "pith
and substance" for the purpose of determining whether it is
legislation with respect to' matters in one list or the other.
Where the question for determination is whether a particular
G }...I"
law relates to a particular subject mentioned in one list or the ;=
other, the courts look into the substance of the enactment.
Thus, if the substance of the enactment falls within the Union
r
List then the incidental encroachment by the .enactment on
the State List would not make it invalid. This principle came
H to be established by the Privy Council when it determined
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. BHARAT SHANTI 1109
LAL SHAH & ORS. [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
~
appeals from Canada or Australia involving the question of A
legislative competence of the federation or the States in those
~

countries. This doctrine came to be established in India and
\
derives its genesis from the approach adopted by the courts
including the Privy Council in dealing with controversies arising
in other federations. For applying the principle of "pith and
B
'<
....~ substance" regard is to be had (1) to the enactment as a
whole, (it) to its main objects, and (iit) to the scope and effect
of its provisions. For this see Southern Pharmaceuticals &
Chemicals v. State of Kera/a ( 1981 ) 4 SCC 391 , State of
Rajasthan v. G Chawla Al R 1959 SC 544, Thakur Amar Singhji
v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1955 SC 504, Delhi Cloth and General c
Mills Co. Ltd. v. Union oflndia (1983) 4 SCC 166 and Vijay
Kumar Sharma v. State of Karnataka (1990) 2 SCC 562. In
the last-mentioned case it was held: (SCC p. 576, para 15)
"15. (3) Where a law passed by the State Legislature
while being substantially within the scope of the entries D
~
• )'
in the State List entrenches upon any of the entries in
the Central List the constitutionality of the law may be
upheld by invoking the doctrine of pith and substance if
on an analysis of the provisions of the Act it appears th~t
by and large the law falls within the four corners of the E
State List and entrenchment, if any, is purely incidental
or inconsequential.""

32. Article 254 of the Constitution succinctly deals with the
law relating to inconsistency between the laws made by the
(. "\ Parliament and the State Legislature. The question of F
repugnancy under Article 254 will arise when a law made by
Parliament and a law made by State Legislature occupies the
same field with respect to one of the matters enumerated in
Concurrent List and there is a direct conflict in two laws. In other
words, the question of repugnancy arises only in connection G
,"'~
with subjects enumerated in Concurrent List. In such situation
the provisions enacted by Parliament and State Legislature
cannot unitedly stand and the State law will have to make the
way for the Union Law. Once it is proved and established that
the State law is repugnant to the Union law, the State law would
H
1110 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R.

A become void but only to the extent-of repugnancy. At the same
time it is to be noted that mere possibility of repugnancy will not
make a State iaw invalid, for repugnancy has to exist in fact and
it must be shown clearly and sufficiently that State law is
repugnant to Union law.
B 33. In the background of the aforesaid legal· position we
may now proceed to examine the question of competence of
the State Legislature to enact a law of the nature of MCOCA.
34. A perusal of the relevant provisions of MCOCA would
c indicate that the said law authorizes the interception of wire,
electronic and oral communication only if it is intended to prevent
the commission of an organised crime or if it is intended to
collect the evidence to the. commission of such an organized
crime. Interception of wire, electronic and oral communication
with the said intent in case of urgency is also permitted under
0
the State Act in which case it is to be approved by an officernot
below the rank of Additional Director General of Police within
48 hours of occurrence of interception.
35. The provisions of the ·MCOCA when read with the
E Statement of Objects and. Reasons, which are already dealt
with and refer~ed to hereinbefore, would make it apparent and
establish that the grounds for interception of the communication
under MceeA are distinct and different from the ground covered
by Section 5(2) of the Telegraph Act. A comparative reading of
F . the provisions of the Telegraph Acf as .also of the MCOCA !~
would establish that both the Acts deal with the subjects and
area.s which cannot be said to be identical and common. ·
36;. In paragraph 48 of the impugned judgment, the High
Court has reproduced a. comp·arative chart, which was filed
G before the High court b~-:the respondents herein, to show that ~
MCOCA had made inroads on the legislative power of the
Parliament. Our attention was also drawn to the said chart and
we find that the conclusion. ofthe High Court that tti.ere is
repugnancy in.view of the statutory provisions contained therein
H do not appear to be sound. The High Court has recorded that
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. BHARAT SHANTI 1111
LAL SHAH & ORS. [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
~
under the Central Law the communication ca.n be intercepted A
only if there was public emergency and interest of public safety
was involved. The High Court did not find any such provision in
MCOCA because the grounds for interception in the State law
are totally different from the grounds covered under the Telegraph
Act. State law authorizes interception only if it is intended to B
.J ..!( prevent the commission of an organized crime and/or if it is
intended to collect evidence of.such organized crime. The High
Court thereafter proceeded to compare Rule 419A (1) and (5)
of the Telegraph Rules with Section 14(4), (8) and (10) ·()f
MCOCA. On the basis of the aforesaid comparison it cannot c
be held that MCOCA had encroached upon the legislative power
of the Parliament. The proviso to Rule 419A(1) deals with cases
of emergency and provides that in cases of emergency the
communication may be intercepted without the prior approval
of the competent authority and the app~oval may be obtained
0
within a period of 15 days. It was held by the High Court that no
1 time limit is provided under Section 14(4) of the Act. But, the
)I
said finding appears to be erroneous as Section 14(10) and
(11) deal with emergency situations and provide appropriate
safeguards.
IE
37. It is now well settled that though the Statement of
Objects and Reasons accompanying a legislative Bill cannot
be used to determine the true meaning and effect of the
substantive provisions of a statute, but it is permissible to refer
to the Statement of Objects and Reasons accompanying a Bill F
·i
_.,. for the purpose of understanding the background, the antecedent
state of affairs, the surrounding circumstances in relation to the
statute, and the evil which the statute sought to remedy. In this
regard we may refer to the majority view (6:1) in the case of

.
~
Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat, reported in
(2005) 8 sec 534, wherein it was observed as under:
G

"Question 4. Statement of Objects and Reasons .._
Significance and role thereof
69. Reference to the Statement of Objects and Reasons
H
1112 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R.

A is permissible for understanding the background,
antecedent state of affairs in relation to the statute, and
the evil which the statute has sought to remedy. (See
Principles of Statutory Interpretation by Justice G.P. Singh,
9th Edn., 2004, at p. 218). In State of WB. v. Subodh
B Gopal Bose AIR 1954 SC 92 the Constitution Bench was
testing the constitutional validity of the legislation impugned
therein. The Statement of Objects and Reasons was used
by S.R. Das, J. for ascertaining the conditions prevalent
at that time which led to the introduction of the Bill and the
c extent and urgency of the evil which was sought to be
remedied, in addition to testing the reasonableness of the
restrictions imposed by the impugned provision. In his
opinion, it was indeed very unfortunate that the Statement
of Objects and Reasons was not placed before the High
Court which would have assisted the High Court in arriving
D
at the right conclusion as to the reasonableness of the
restriction imposed. State of WB. v. Union of India (1964)
· 1 SCR 371,_ SCR at pp. 431-32 approved the use of
Statement of Objects and Reasons for the purpose of
understanding the background and the antecedent state
of affairs leading up to the legislation.
70. In Quareshi-1 1959 SCR 629 itself, which has been
very strongly relied -Upon by the learned counsel for the
respondents before us, Chief Justice S.R. Das has held:
F (SCR pp. 652 & 661)
''The pronouncements of this Court further establish,
amongst other things, that there is always a presumption
in favour of the constitutionality of an enactment and that
the burden is upon him, who attacks it, to show that there
G . has been a clear violation of the constitutional principles.
7fie courts, it is accepted, must presume that the
legislature understands and correctly appreciates the
needs of its own people·;'ffiat its laws are directed to
prop/ems made manifest by experience and that its
H discriminations are based on adequate grounds. It must
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. BHARAT SHANTI 1113
LAL SF-lAH & ORS. [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.].

~ be borne in mind that the legislature is free to recognise A
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 presumption of
constitutionality the Court may take into consideration
matters of common knowledge, matters of common report, B
;Ii
~,
the history of the times and may assume every state of
facts which can be conceived existing at the time of
legislation. (AIR para 15)
***
c
... 'The legislature is the best judge of what is good for the
community, by whose suffrage it comes into existence ... '.
This should be the proper approach for the court but the
ultimate responsibility for determining the validity of the
law must rest with the court .... (AIR para 21, also see the
D
several decisions referred to therein.)"
~'f

. 71. The facts stated in the preamble and the Statement of
Objects and Reasons appended to any legislation are
evidence of the legislative judgment. They indicate the
thought process of the elected representatives of the ~
people and their cognizance of the prevalent state of
affairs, impelling them to enact the law. These, therefore,
constitute important factors which amongst others will be
taken into consideration by the court in judging the
reasonableness of any restriction irriposed on the F
:i,i fundamental rights of the individuals. The Court would begin
with a presumption of reason ability of the restriction, more
so when the facts stated in the Statement of Objects and
Reasons and the preamble are taken to ;be correct and
they justify the enactment of law for the purpose sought to
G
.. be achieved."
'°''--(_
38. The objects and reasons read with the contents of the
Act would indicate that the subject matter of the Act is maintaining
public order and prevention by police of commission of serious
offences affecting public order and, therefore as submitted, it H
·"·
1114 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R. ~

y
A will be relatable to Entry 1 and 2 of List II. After enacting
MCOCA, assent of the President was also obtained and
.received on 24.04.1999. That being the position if the subject
matter and the field of legislation are found to be covered under ,
any of the entries of the Concurrent List also, the constitutional
B validity will .have to be upheld. Thus, Entry 1, 2 anp 12 of the
Concurrent List would and could also be brought into operation r ..
and aid can be taken from said entries also, for the Act deals I

with subject matters which are relatable as well to Entries 1, 2 t
and 12 of the Concurrent List. . '

'
c 39. We are of the considered opinion that source of power r
to legislate the aforesaid Act can be derived by the State from ~
the aforesaid entries of the State List and the Concurrent List
and while enacting the aforesaid State Act the assent of the
President was also taken. Therefore, the Act cannot be said to
D be beyond the legislative competence of the State Legislature. y
The content of the said Act might have encroached upon the
scope of Entry 31 of List I but the same is Qnly an incidental "
encroachment. As the main purpose of the Act is within the
parameter of Entry 1 and 2 of the State Legislature we find no
E reason to hold that the provisions Qf Sections 13 to 16 are .
constitutionally invalid because of legislative competence.
40. Another ground on which challenge was made was ~

that Section 13 to 16 violates the mandate of Article 21 of the
I

constitution. It was submitted that provisions contained under
F Section 13 to 16 of the impugned act authorizing interception )' .J.
of communication violates the Right to Privacy, which is part of
right to 'life' and 'personal liberty' enriched under Article 21.
Article 21 of the Constitution reads as under:

G
"Protection to Life and Personal Liberty
y;..
21. No' person shall be deprived of his life or personal
liberty except according to procedure established by law."
, '

41. The Right to Privacy has been developed by the
Supreme Court over a period of time and with the expansive .
H
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. BHARAT SHANTI 1115
LAL SHAH & ORS. [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
-..;·
interpretation of the phrase 'personal liberty', this right has been A
read into Article 21. It was stated in the case of Gobind v. State
of M.P reported in (1975) 2 SCC 148 that Right to Privacy is
a 'right to be let alone' and a citizen has a right 'to safeguard
the privacy of his own, his family, marriage, procreation,
motherhood, child-bearing and education among other matters'. B
~·~·
The term privacy has not been defined and it was held in the
case of People's Union for Civil Liberfies (PUCL) v. Union of
India, reported in (1997) 1 sec 301 that as a concept it may
be too broad and moralistic to define it judicially and whether
" right to privacy can be claimed or has been infringed in a given c

"'
~

4
case would depend on the facts of the said case.
·42. The question whether interception of telephonic
message/tapping of telephonic conversation constitutes a
serious invasion of an individual right to privacy was considered
by this court Ofl two occasions. One in the year 1972 in the D
'-1 case of R. M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra, reported in
. (1973) 1 sec 471, wherein it was held as under:
"31 ......... Article 21 contemplates procedure establis.hed by
law with regard to deprivation of life or personal liberty. The
telephonic conversation of an innocent citizen will be protected E
by Courts against wrongful or highhanded interference by
tapping the conversation. The protection is not for the guilty
citizen against the efforts of the police to vindicate the law and
prevent corruption of public servants. It must not be understood
that the Courts will tolerate safeguards for the protection of F
. /'( the citizen to be imperilled by permitting the police to proceed
by unlawful or irregular methods. In the present case there is
no unlawful or even irregular method in obtaining the tape-
recording of the conversation."
43. The question posed above was considered again in G
...,..,-----\ detail by this Court in the case of People's Union (supra),
wherein it was held as under:

"17. We have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that right
to privacy is a part of the right to "life" and "personal liberty"
H
1116 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 12 S.C.R.

·y
A enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution. Once the
facts in a given case constitute a right to privacy, Article
21 is attracted. The said right cannot be curtailed "except
according to procedure established by law".
18. The right to privacy,_ by itself - has not been
s· identified under the Constitution. As a concept it may be
';!-·..
too broad and moralistic to define it judicially. Whether
right to privacy can be claimed or has been infringed in a
given case would depend on the facts of the said case.
But the right to hold a telephone conversation in the privacy
c of one's home or office without interference can certainly 1l_
be claimed as "right to privacy". Conversations on the ~
~

telephone are often of an intimate and confidential '
character. Telephone conversation is a part of modern
man's life. It is considered so important that more and
D more people are carrying mobile telephone instruments
in their pockets. Telephone conversation is an important f
facet of a man's private life. Right to privacy would certainly ~

include telephone conversation in the privacy of one's
home or office. Telephone-tapping would, thus, infract
E Article 21 of the Constitution of India unless it is permitted
under the procedure established by law."
44. The interception of conversation though constitutes
an invasion of an individual right to privacy but the said right
can be curtailed in accordance to procedure validly established
F by law. Thus what the Court is required to see is that the ,..l
procedure itself must be fair, just and reasonable and non
arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive.
45. The object of the MCOCA is to prevent the organised
crime and a perusal qf the provisions of Act under challenge
G
would indicate that the said law authorizes the interception of ,.__~-:""

wire, electronic or oral communication only if it is intended to
prevent the commission of an organised crime or if it is intended
to.collect the evidence to the commission of such an organized
crime. The procedures authorizing such interception are also
H
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. BHARAT SHANTI 1117
LAL SHAH & ORS. [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
~
provided therein with enough procedural safe guards, some of A
which are indicated and discussed hereinbefore. In addition
under Section 16 of the MCOCA, provision for prohibiting and
punishing the unauthorized user of information acquired by
interception of wire, electronic or oral communication has been
made. Thus as the Act under challenge contains sufficient B
.. '( safeguards and also satisfies the aforementioned mandate
the contention of the respondents that provisions of Section 13
to 16 are violative of the Article 21 of the Constitution cannot
also be accepted.
46. Having recorded our finding in the aforesaid manner, c
we now proceed to decide the issue as to whether a person
accused of an offence under MCOCA should be denied bail if
on the date of the offence he is on bail for an offence under
MCOCA or any other Act. Section 21 (5) of MCOCA reads as
under: D
""}
"Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code, the
"' accused shall not be granted bail if it is noticed by the
Court that he was on bail in an offence under this Act, or
under any other Act, on the date of the offence in question"
E
47. As discussed above the object of the MCOCA is to
prevent the organised crime and, therefore, there could be
reason to deny consideration of grant of bail if one has
committed a similar offence once again after being released
on bail but the same consideration cannot be extended to a F
person who commits an offence under some other Act, for
commission of an offence under some other act would not be
in any case in consonance with the object of the act which is
enacted in order to prevent only organised crime.

'.,.--\ 48. We consider that a person who is on bail after being G
arrested for violation of law unconnected with MCOCA, should
not be denied his right to seek bail if he is arrested under the
MCOCA, for it cannot be said that he is a habitual offender. The
provision of denying his right to seek bail, if he was arrested
earlier and was on bail for commission of an offence under any H
1118 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R.

A other Act, suffers from the vice of unreasonable classification \--
by placing in the same class, offences which may have nothing
in common with those under MCOCA, for the purpose df denying
consideration of bail. The aforesaid expression and restriction
on the right of seeking bail is not even in consonance with the
B object sought to be achieved by the Act and, therefore, on the
face of the provisions this is an excessive restriction. 7:4
49. The High Court found that the expression "or under
any other Act" appearing in the section is arbitrary and
(:--
discriminatory and accordingly struck down the said words from
c sub-Section (5) of Section 21 as being violative of Article 14
and 21 of the Constitution. We uphold the order of the High .;
Court to the extent that the words "or under any other Act" should
be struck down from Sub section (5) of Section 21.
50. In view of the aforesaid discussions, we allow the
D
appeals of the State Government, insofar as the constitutional y
validity of Sections 13 to 16 of MCOCA is concerned. We
'(
uphold the validity of the said provisions. The decision pf the
High Court striking down the words "or under any other Act"
from sub-Section (5) of Section 21 of the Act is however upheld.
E The parties to bear their own cost.
51. Consequential orders, if any, in terms of the
observations and directions passed in these appeals, may be
passed by the concerned Court(s) where any proceeding under
F MCOCA is pending.
>-,
R.P. Appeal partly allowed.