• Today: November 01, 2025

ITC Ltd. v. Agricultural Produce Market Committee

01 November, 2025
1301
ITC Ltd v Agricultural Produce Market Committee (AIR 2002 SC 852) — Entry 52 & Tobacco Board Act

ITC Ltd. v. Agricultural Produce Market Committee

AIR 2002 SC 852 — Entry 52 (List I) • Tobacco Board Act • Repugnancy with State Market Law

Supreme Court of India 2002 AIR 2002 SC 852 Constitutional / Regulatory ~6 min read
Author: Gulzar Hashmi India • Published:
Hero image for ITC Ltd v APMC case explainer
CASE_TITLE: ITC Ltd. v. Agricultural Produce Market Committee PRIMARY_KEYWORDS: Entry 52 List I, Tobacco Board Act, legislative competence SECONDARY_KEYWORDS: market fee, repugnancy, Article 254, APMC PUBLISH_DATE: 25 Oct 2025 AUTHOR_NAME: Gulzar Hashmi LOCATION: India Slug: itc-ltd-v-agricultural-produce-market-committee

Quick Summary

The Supreme Court upheld the Tobacco Board Act made by Parliament under Entry 52 (List I). It said the Central law covers the field of tobacco growing, sale, and purchase. The State Market Committee’s fee on unprocessed tobacco conflicted with this. Because there was a collision, the Central Act prevailed, and the High Court decision was set aside.

Issues

  • Is the Tobacco Board Act, made under Entry 52 of List I, within Parliament’s power?
  • Can the Central Act and the State APMC Act run together for tobacco marketing?
  • If there is a conflict, will the Central Act override the State law?

Rules

  • Entry 52, Union List: Parliament can control an industry if it declares such control is in the public interest.
  • Field Occupation & Conflict: When a Central law fully covers the field, a State law on the same subject cannot cut across it.
  • Central Prevails on Repugnancy: If a Central and a State law collide in the same field, the Central law prevails (repugnancy principle).

Facts (Timeline)

Timeline image for ITC v APMC
Market Fee Demand: APMC raised a demand of ₹35,87,072 on ITC for buying unprocessed tobacco leaves from growers.
High Court: ITC challenged the levy by writ before the Patna High Court; the company lost and moved the Supreme Court by SLP.
Central Law: The Tobacco Board Act regulates growing, sale, and purchase of tobacco under Entry 52.
Clash Noticed: Provisions of the Central Act and the State APMC Act collided on the same field of tobacco marketing.

Arguments

ITC (Petitioner)

  • APMC cannot levy fee on unprocessed tobacco because the Central Act controls this field.
  • Central regulation of tobacco occupies the field; State law must give way.

Market Committee (Respondent)

  • Market regulation and fees are part of State powers for agricultural produce.
  • Both laws can operate: Central for industry; State for market fees.

Judgment

Judgment gavel image for ITC v APMC

Held: The Supreme Court upheld the Tobacco Board Act as a valid law under Entry 52 (List I). It found a direct conflict between the Central Act and the State APMC law in the same field.

Because of the conflict, the Central Act prevailed. The High Court judgment was set aside, and the APMC demand did not stand.

Ratio Decidendi

  • Parliament’s control under Entry 52 covers tobacco industry and marketing as provided in the Tobacco Board Act.
  • Where Central and State laws collide in the same field, the Central law prevails; both cannot operate together.

Why It Matters

The case shows how industry control by Parliament can displace State market levies when both target the same activity. It is a clean example of field occupation and repugnancy in action.

Key Takeaways

  • Entry 52 lets Parliament control the tobacco industry by law.
  • Tobacco Board Act occupies the field of growing, sale, and purchase of tobacco.
  • Central over State when there is a direct conflict.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “52 Takes the Lead.” — Entry 52 means Parliament leads in tobacco control.

  1. Spot the field: tobacco growing, sale, purchase.
  2. Check for clash: Central vs State rules on the same activity.
  3. Apply the rule: Central Act prevails → State fee fails.

IRAC Outline

Issue

Is the Tobacco Board Act valid under Entry 52? Can it override State market fee laws for tobacco?

Rule

Entry 52 allows Parliament’s control of an industry; if Central and State laws collide in the same field, Central prevails.

Application

Tobacco Board Act regulates growing and marketing. APMC fee on ITC for unprocessed leaves clashes with this control.

Conclusion

Central Act prevails; High Court view set aside; APMC demand does not survive.

Glossary

Entry 52 (List I)
Parliament may control an industry in public interest by law.
Repugnancy
A conflict where Central and State laws cannot work together.
Occupies the Field
Central law fully covers a subject, leaving no room for State law.
APMC
State body that regulates agricultural markets and may levy fees.

FAQs

A large market fee was demanded from ITC on buying unprocessed tobacco leaves from growers. ITC said the Central law controlled this area.

It lets Parliament take charge of an industry in the public interest. Tobacco was placed under such control through the Tobacco Board Act.

No. They clashed in the same field. When there is a clash, the Central law wins.

It was set aside by the Supreme Court. The market fee demand did not survive.

Footer

Reviewed by The Law Easy

Constitutional Law Regulatory Law Industries (Entry 52)
Images (optional): hero, timeline, judgment.

Comment

Nothing for now