ESAB INDIA LIMITED Vs. SPECIAL DIRIECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Before we proceed to state the facts, we may profitably refer to a paragraph from the decision rendered in the case of R.S. Joshi Sales Tax Officer Gujarat and Ors. v. Ajit Mills Ltd. and Anr., 1977 4 SCC 98, wherein Krishna Iyer, J., in his inimitable style expressed thus:

(2.) A prefactory caveat.- When examining a legislation from the angle of its vires, the Court has to be resilient, not rigid, forward-looking, not static, liberal, not verbal in interpreting the organic law of the nation. We must also remember the constitutional proposition enunciated by the U.S. Supreme Court in Munn v. Illinois viz, "that Courts do not substitute their social and economic beliefs for the judgment of legislative bodies". Moreover, while trespasses will not be forgiven, a presumption of constitutionality must colour judicial construction. These factors, recognized our Court, are essential to the modus vivendi between the judicial and legislative branches of the State, both working beneath the canopy of the Constitution.

(3.) In Ram Krishna Dalmia and Ors. v. Justice S.R. Tendolkar and Ors., 1958 AIR(SC) 538, the Apex Court ruled that there is always a presumption in favour of the constitutionality of an enactment and the burden is on him who challenges the same to show that there has been a clear transgression of the constitutional principles and it is the duty of the Court to sustain that there is a presumption of constitutionality and in doing so, the Court may take into consideration, the 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.