Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

40. The above speech of Mr. T. T. Krishnamachari shows that the members were aware that certain known taxes had not been included specifically in the three lists.

41. It is, therefore, difficult to escape from the conclusion that in India there is no field of legislation which has not been allotted either to Parliament or to the State legislatures. In Attorney-General for Ontario v. Attorney-General for Canada [1947] A.C. 127, 150, Lord Jowitt, L.C., recalled the following words of Lord Loreburn, L.C., in Attorney-General for Ontario v. Attorney-General for Canada [1912] A.C. 571, 581 and reiterated them :

(2) The general power of legislation conferred upon the Parliament of the Dominion by Section 91 of the Act in supplement of the power to legislate upon the subjects expressly enumerated must be strictly confined to such matters as are unquestionably of national interest and importance, and must not trench on any of the subjects enumerated in Section 92 as within the scope of provincial legislation, unless these matters have attained such dimensions as to affect the body politic of the Dominion : see Attorney-General for Ontario v. Attorney-General for the Dominion [1894] A.C. 348.
(3) It is within the competence of the Dominion Parliament to provide for matters which, though otherwise within the legislative competence of the provincial legislature, are necessarily incidental to effective legislation by the Parliament of the Dominion upon a subject of legislation expressly enumerated in Section 91 : see Attorney-General of Ontario v. Attorney-General for the Dominion [1894] A.C. 189 and Attorney-General for Ontario v. Attorney-General for the Dominion [1816] A.C. 348.
(4) There can be a domain in which provincial and Dominion legislation may overlap, in which case neither legislation will be ultra vires if the field is clear, but if the field is not clear and the two legislations must meet the Dominion legislation must prevail; see Grand Trunk Ry. of Canada v. Attorney-General of Canada (1907] A.C. 65.

48. This statement was approved of in In re The Regulation and Control of Aeronautics in Canada [1932] A.C. 54; in In re Silver Brothers. Ltd. [1932] A.C. 514; and in Canadian Pacific Railway Company v. Attorney-General for British Columbia [1950] A.C. 122..

49. It would be noticed that the second proposition was based on Attorney-General for Ontario v. Attorney General for the Dominion [1896] A.C. 348 and the words "In supplement" are said to have been used for the first time by the Privy Council.