Pro tanto is a Latin phrase meaning “to that extent” or “for so much”. In law it says that something takes effect only as far as a particular part, amount or conflict goes, and no further. A law that is “void pro tanto” is void only in the part that offends; a debt reduced “pro tanto” is reduced by the amount paid; a legacy “adeemed pro tanto” fails only for the part the testator has already received.
The most common Indian example is Article 254(1) of the Constitution: when a State law on a Concurrent List subject is repugnant to a law made by Parliament, the State law “shall, to the extent of the repugnancy, be void”. In the words of a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in State of Kerala v. Mar Appraem Kuri Co. Ltd. (8 May 2012), “In case of repugnancy, the State Legislation would be void only to the extent of repugnancy.” That is pro tanto repugnancy.
Pro tanto at a glance
- Meaning: “to that extent” or “for so much”; the effect is limited to a particular part or amount.
- Pro tanto repugnancy: a State law repugnant to a law made by Parliament “shall, to the extent of the repugnancy, be void” (Article 254(1)), unless clause (2) applies.
- Exception: a State law on a Concurrent List matter that is repugnant to an earlier law of Parliament or an existing law, and was reserved for the President and received his assent, prevails “in that State” (Article 254(2)); Parliament can still amend or repeal it later.
- Void pro tanto under Article 13: laws inconsistent with fundamental rights are void “to the extent of such inconsistency” (Article 13(1)) or “to the extent of the contravention” (Article 13(2)).
- In a statute: “Ademption pro tanto” in Sections 155, 156 and 159 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925: a gift in a will fails only in part, e.g. “to the extent of the sum so received” (Section 155).
- Pro tanto vs pro rata: pro tanto limits an effect to a part or amount; pro rata shares something out in proportion, as in “rateably” (Section 323, Indian Succession Act; Section 73, CPC).
- In Hindi: the official Hindi of Article 254(1) says the State law is void “उस विरोध की मात्रा तक” (to the extent of that repugnancy).
Reviewed and updated by Century Law Firm, Delhi – October 2026. Statutory references are to the Acts as in force on that date. The Constitution is quoted from the Legislative Department’s English edition on India Code (as on 1 May 2026) and its Hindi edition on India Code (text as on 1 May 2024), the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (as on 19 June 2026), the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (as on 10 January 2026) and the Indian Contract Act, 1872 from India Code, and the Supreme Court’s judgment in Mar Appraem Kuri (2012) from its official copy.
What does pro tanto mean?
Pro tanto is made of two Latin words: pro, “for”, and tanto, “so much”. Put together they mean “for so much” or “to that extent”. The phrase always points back to a measure: so much of a law, so much of a debt, so much of a gift. Whatever is said to happen pro tanto happens up to that measure and stops there.
Indian statutes rarely use the Latin; they say it in English: “to the extent of the repugnancy” (Article 254), “to the extent of such inconsistency” (Article 13), “to that extent void” (Section 27 of the Contract Act), “to the extent of the sum so received” (Section 155 of the Succession Act). “Pro tanto” is the lawyers’ short label for these words. The Legal Maxims Explained hub lists other Latin terms.
Pro tanto reasons and duties outside law
In moral philosophy a “pro tanto reason” or “pro tanto duty” is one that genuinely counts for something but can be outweighed by stronger reasons. That is a use of philosophy, not of Indian statutes.
Pro tanto repugnancy: Article 254 of the Constitution
Parliament and the State Legislatures can both make laws on the subjects in the Concurrent List. When their laws clash, Article 254(1) decides which one wins and how much of the losing law falls. It reads:
“254. Inconsistency between laws made by Parliament and laws made by the Legislatures of States.—(1) If any provision of a law made by the Legislature of a State is repugnant to any provision of a law made by Parliament which Parliament is competent to enact, or to any provision of an existing law with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent List, then, subject to the provisions of clause (2), the law made by Parliament, whether passed before or after the law made by the Legislature of such State, or, as the case may be, the existing law, shall prevail and the law made by the Legislature of the State shall, to the extent of the repugnancy, be void.”
The Central law prevails “whether passed before or after” the State law, and the State law is void only “to the extent of the repugnancy”, that is, pro tanto, not as a whole merely because one provision clashes.
Clause (2) is the exception: a State law on a Concurrent List matter that is repugnant to “an earlier law made by Parliament or an existing law” “shall, if it has been reserved for the consideration of the President and has received his assent, prevail in that State”. Its proviso keeps Parliament’s last word, since Parliament may at any time enact a law “adding to, amending, varying or repealing the law so made by the Legislature of the State.”
What the Supreme Court said in Mar Appraem Kuri (2012)
In State of Kerala v. M/s. Mar Appraem Kuri Co. Ltd. (Civil Appeal No. 6660 of 2005, decided on 8 May 2012), a Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice S.H. Kapadia decided when the Kerala Chitties Act, 1975 became repugnant to the Central Chit Funds Act, 1982. Explaining Article 254(1), it said: “In case of repugnancy, the State Legislation would be void only to the extent of repugnancy. If there is no repugnancy between the two laws, there is no question of application of Article 254(1) and both the Acts would prevail.”
The judgment also uses the Latin phrase. Kerala had amended its Act in 2002 without the President’s assent, and the Court said the State had to keep in mind the Central law of 1982, “though not in force in Kerala, whereunder there is a pro tanto repeal of the State Act”, and “ought to have obtained the assent of the President.” It explained: “Repeal of an enactment is a matter of substance. It depends on the intention of the Legislature. If by reason of the subsequent enactment, the Legislature intended to abrogate or wipe off the former enactment, wholly or in part, then, it would be a case of pro tanto repeal.”
The extent can be a whole Act. The Court held that “repugnancy arises on the making and not commencement of the law”, and that because the Central Act “covered the entire field of “chits” under entry 7 of List III”, the Kerala Act “became void and stood impliedly repealed”, subject to Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. The measure is the extent of the conflict: one clashing section, or a whole law where the Central Act occupies the entire field.
Delhi laws and Article 251
The same rule applies to laws of the Delhi Legislative Assembly: under Article 239AA(3)(c) a repugnant provision is void “to the extent of the repugnancy”, unless the law was reserved for the President and assented to, in which case it “shall prevail in the National Capital Territory”. Article 251, for laws Parliament makes under Articles 249 and 250, uses different words: the State law is not “void” but, “to the extent of the repugnancy, but so long only as the law made by Parliament continues to have effect, be inoperative.” The table sets the provisions side by side.
| Provision | When it applies | Effect on the other law |
|---|---|---|
| Article 254(1) | State law repugnant to a law made by Parliament (or an existing law) on a Concurrent List matter | Central law prevails; State law void “to the extent of the repugnancy” |
| Article 254(2) | State law repugnant to an earlier law made by Parliament or an existing law on a Concurrent List matter, reserved for the President and assented to | State law prevails in that State; Parliament may still add to, amend, vary or repeal it |
| Article 239AA(3)(c) | Law of the Delhi Legislative Assembly repugnant to a law made by Parliament (or an earlier law) | Assembly’s law void “to the extent of the repugnancy”, unless reserved and assented to |
| Article 251 | State law repugnant to a law Parliament made under Article 249 or 250 | State law “inoperative” to the extent of the repugnancy, “so long only as” Parliament’s law has effect |
Prepared by Century Law Firm from Article 254 of the Constitution of India (India Code, as on 1 May 2026) and State of Kerala v. Mar Appraem Kuri Co. Ltd. (Supreme Court, 8 May 2012, official copy).
Void pro tanto: Article 13 and fundamental rights
Article 13 applies the same measure to laws that conflict with Part III of the Constitution. Clause (1) covers laws that existed before the Constitution: “All laws in force in the territory of India immediately before the commencement of this Constitution, in so far as they are inconsistent with the provisions of this Part, shall, to the extent of such inconsistency, be void.” Clause (2) covers later laws: “The State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges the rights conferred by this Part and any law made in contravention of this clause shall, to the extent of the contravention, be void.”
This is “void pro tanto” in constitutional law: the law is void in the part that conflicts with the fundamental rights, not in its other provisions merely because of that part. “Law” includes “any Ordinance, order, bye-law, rule, regulation, notification, custom or usage having in the territory of India the force of law” (Article 13(3)(a)). The firm’s guide to Article 13 of the Constitution explains the article in full, and the post on ultra vires covers laws made beyond a legislature’s power.
Where Indian statutes use the words “pro tanto”
Ademption pro tanto: the Indian Succession Act, 1925
A legacy (a gift by will) is “adeemed” when the thing given no longer belongs to the testator at death or has been converted into something else: it “cannot take effect” (Section 152). Three sections on partial ademption carry “pro tanto” in their headings:
- Section 155 (“Ademption pro tanto by testator’s receipt of part of entire thing specifically bequeathed”): “The receipt by the testator of a part of an entire thing specifically bequeathed shall operate as an ademption of the legacy to the extent of the sum so received.” In the illustration, A leaves B “the debt due to me by C”, a debt of 10,000 rupees; C pays A 5,000 rupees during A’s lifetime, and “The legacy is revoked by ademption, so far as regards the 5,000 rupees received by A.”
- Section 156 (portion of a fund specifically bequeathed): receipt of part of the fund operates “as an ademption only to the extent of the amount so received”, and the residue goes to the legatee.
- Section 159 (stock that exists only in part at death): “the legacy is adeemed so far as regards that part of the stock which has ceased to exist.” If A sells half of the loan stock he left to B, “One-half of the legacy is adeemed.”
Under Section 57 and Schedule III these sections also apply, with some restrictions, to wills made by Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs and Jainas (for example, those made on or after 1 January 1927); under Section 58 they do not apply to testamentary succession to a Muslim’s property. The firm’s page on will registration in Delhi deals with making a will.
Pro tanto exclusion of jurisdiction
India Code’s historical text of the Bombay Civil Courts’ Act, 1869 (marked “Subject to verification and confirmation by the Department”) shows the phrase in a jurisdiction rule. Section 19 allowed the Governor of Bombay in Council to give an Assistant Judge a District Judge’s powers within part of a district, and said that his jurisdiction “shall pro tanto exclude the jurisdiction of the District Judge from within the said limits.” Whether this section still applies today was not checked for this post.
“To that extent void”: agreements under the Contract Act
The Indian Contract Act, 1872 does not use the Latin, but two of its well-known sections are pro tanto rules. Section 27 says: “Every agreement by which any one is restrained from exercising a lawful profession, trade or business of any kind, is to that extent void.” Exception 1 saves an agreement by a seller of a business’s goodwill not to carry on a similar business within specified local limits, if the limits are reasonable.
Section 28 makes void “to the extent” an agreement that absolutely restricts a party from enforcing his contractual rights “by the usual legal proceedings in the ordinary tribunals”, limits the time to enforce them, or extinguishes rights on the expiry of a specified period so as to restrict their enforcement; arbitration agreements and certain bank or financial-institution guarantee terms are saved by its exceptions. In both sections the offending restriction falls; neither says the whole contract falls with it. The firm’s guide to types of contract under the Indian Contract Act covers void and voidable agreements more broadly.
Part payment, set-off and “pro tanto discharge”
A part payment is sometimes described as discharging a debt “pro tanto”: the debt is reduced by the amount paid, and the rest is still owed. The Contract Act decides which debt a payment goes to: the debt the debtor indicates, if the creditor accepts the payment (Section 59); if he does not, any lawful debt the creditor chooses (Section 60); if neither appropriates, the debts “in order of time”, and debts “of equal standing” proportionably (Section 61).
A part payment discharges the whole debt where the creditor accepts it in full satisfaction. Section 63 allows a promisee to “remit, wholly or in part, the performance” or to “accept instead of it any satisfaction which he thinks fit”; its illustration (b) says that where A owes B 5,000 rupees and B accepts 2,000 rupees “in satisfaction of the whole debt”, “The whole debt is discharged.” Section 63 also lets the creditor remit the balance.
In a money suit, a defendant can reduce the plaintiff’s claim by “any ascertained sum of money legally recoverable by him from the plaintiff” through set-off under Order VIII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (details in the FAQ below); an unascertained claim can be raised as a counter-claim under Rule 6A. For suits on written contracts and cheques, see the firm’s guide to the summary suit under Order XXXVII CPC.
No central Act or official source opened for this post uses “pro tanto” for compensation or settlements. Among central Acts on India Code, the phrase appears in the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and in the historical text of the Bombay Civil Courts’ Act, 1869. Some State Acts also use it, for example Section 209(3) of the Goa Succession, Special Notaries and Inventory Proceeding Act, 2012: “When the testator alienates the bequeathed thing before his death, the will shall stand revoked pro tanto.”
Pro tanto vs pro rata: what is the difference?
The two phrases sound alike but do different jobs. Pro tanto (“to that extent”) limits an effect to one part or one amount: so much of a law is void, so much of a debt is paid, so much of a gift has failed. Pro rata (“in proportion”) divides something among several people or claims according to their size. Indian statutes express the pro rata idea as “rateably” or “in proportion”. Under the Indian Succession Act an executor pays debts “equally and rateably as far as the assets of the deceased will extend” (Section 323), and if assets are short, general legacies “abate or be diminished in equal proportions” (Section 327). Under Section 73 of the Code of Civil Procedure, assets held by the court are “rateably distributed” among decree-holders who have applied for execution against the same judgment-debtor.
A third phrase, in toto (“entirely”), is the opposite of pro tanto: the whole law, debt or gift is affected, not a part.
- State law void only where it clashes (Art. 254(1))
- Gift in a will fails only for the part already received (s.155 ISA)
- Debts of a deceased paid “equally and rateably” (s.323 ISA)
- Execution assets shared “rateably” among decree-holders (s.73 CPC)
Prepared by Century Law Firm from Article 254 of the Constitution, Sections 155 and 323 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and Section 73 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (India Code).
प्रो टैंटो (Pro Tanto) – हिंदी में अर्थ और सारांश (Summary in Hindi)
प्रो टैंटो (pro tanto) लैटिन भाषा का वाक्यांश है, जिसका अर्थ है “उस सीमा तक” या “उतनी मात्रा तक”। कानून में इसका प्रयोग तब होता है जब किसी नियम, भुगतान या अमान्यता का असर केवल किसी एक भाग या राशि तक सीमित रहता है, उससे आगे नहीं। “प्रो टैंटो” का कोई आधिकारिक हिंदी पर्याय हमें नहीं मिला; नीचे का सारांश फर्म का अपना है, पर संविधान के उद्धरण उसके आधिकारिक हिंदी पाठ से लिए गए हैं।
इसका सबसे प्रसिद्ध उदाहरण संविधान का अनुच्छेद 254(1) है। संविधान के आधिकारिक हिंदी पाठ (India Code पर उपलब्ध हिंदी संस्करण, 1 मई 2024 तक अद्यतन) में अनुच्छेद 254(1) इस प्रकार है: “यदि किसी राज्य के विधान-मंडल द्वारा बनाई गई विधि का कोई उपबंध संसद् द्वारा बनाई गई विधि के, जिसे अधिनियमित करने के लिए संसद् सक्षम है, किसी उपबंध के या समवर्ती सूची में प्रगणित किसी विषय के संबंध में विद्यमान विधि के किसी उपबंध के विरुद्ध है तो खंड (2) के उपबंधों के अधीन रहते हुए, यथास्थिति, संसद् द्वारा बनाई गई विधि, चाहे वह ऐसे राज्य के विधान-मंडल द्वारा बनाई गई विधि से पहले या उसके बाद में पारित की गई हो, या विद्यमान विधि, अभिभावी होगी और उस राज्य के विधान-मंडल द्वारा बनाई गई विधि उस विरोध की मात्रा तक शून्य होगी ।”
यहां “उस विरोध की मात्रा तक शून्य होगी” ही प्रो टैंटो का भाव है। यानी राज्य का पूरा कानून अपने-आप शून्य नहीं होता; केवल उतना भाग शून्य होता है जितना केंद्रीय कानून के विरुद्ध है। अनुच्छेद 254(2) के अनुसार यदि राज्य की विधि संसद् द्वारा पहले बनाई गई विधि या विद्यमान विधि के विरुद्ध है और उसे राष्ट्रपति के विचार के लिए आरक्षित रखा गया था और उस पर उनकी अनुमति मिल गई है, तो वह विधि उस राज्य में अभिभावी होगी; फिर भी संसद् बाद में उसी विषय पर कानून बनाकर उसका परिवर्धन, संशोधन, परिवर्तन या निरसन कर सकती है। दिल्ली विधान सभा के कानूनों के लिए अनुच्छेद 239AA(3)(c) में भी यही नियम है।
सर्वोच्च न्यायालय की पांच न्यायाधीशों की संविधान पीठ ने 8 मई 2012 को State of Kerala v. Mar Appraem Kuri Co. Ltd. में कहा कि विरोध की स्थिति में राज्य का कानून केवल विरोध की सीमा तक शून्य होता है, और विरोध कानून के बनाए जाने (making) पर उत्पन्न होता है, उसके लागू होने पर नहीं। उसी फैसले में न्यायालय ने “pro tanto repeal” शब्दों का प्रयोग किया। उस मामले में केंद्रीय चिट फंड अधिनियम, 1982 ने चिट के पूरे क्षेत्र को घेर लिया था, इसलिए केरल का पूरा चिट्टी अधिनियम, 1975 शून्य हो गया। अर्थात् “विरोध की मात्रा” छोटी भी हो सकती है और पूरे कानून जितनी भी।
अनुच्छेद 13 भी यही माप अपनाता है। आधिकारिक हिंदी पाठ के अनुसार संविधान के प्रारंभ से ठीक पहले प्रवृत्त सभी विधियां “उस मात्रा तक शून्य होंगी जिस तक वे इस भाग के उपबंधों से असंगत हैं”, और मूल अधिकारों का उल्लंघन करने वाली प्रत्येक नई विधि “उल्लंघन की मात्रा तक शून्य होगी”। यही “void pro tanto” का अर्थ है।
भारतीय उत्तराधिकार अधिनियम, 1925 की धारा 155, 156 और 159 के शीर्षकों में “pro tanto” शब्द आते हैं। यदि वसीयत में किसी को कोई कर्ज़ या निधि दी गई हो और वसीयतकर्ता अपने जीवनकाल में उसका कुछ भाग स्वयं वसूल कर ले, तो वसीयत का दान केवल उतनी राशि तक समाप्त होता है जितनी वसूल की गई; बाकी भाग पाने वाले को मिलता है।
प्रो टैंटो और प्रो राटा (pro rata) में अंतर: प्रो टैंटो बताता है कि असर कितने भाग तक है, जबकि प्रो राटा बताता है कि कोई राशि कई लोगों में अनुपात के अनुसार कैसे बांटी जाए। जैसे, मृतक के ऋण सभी लेनदारों को अनुपात में चुकाना (उत्तराधिकार अधिनियम, धारा 323) प्रो राटा है। आंशिक भुगतान से कर्ज़ उतनी राशि तक घटता है; लेनदार उसे पूरे कर्ज़ के बदले स्वीकार कर ले तो पूरा कर्ज़ समाप्त हो जाता है (संविदा अधिनियम की धारा 63, दृष्टांत (b))।
Frequently asked questions
Pro tanto is Latin for “to that extent” or “for so much”: an effect limited to a particular part or amount. Indian law usually says it in English. A State law repugnant to a law made by Parliament “shall, to the extent of the repugnancy, be void” (Article 254(1)), and a gift in a will is adeemed “to the extent of the sum so received” where the testator received part of it (Section 155, Indian Succession Act, 1925, headed “Ademption pro tanto”).
Void only to the extent of the offending part. Under Article 13 of the Constitution a law that conflicts with a fundamental right is void “to the extent of such inconsistency” (clause (1), pre-Constitution laws) or “to the extent of the contravention” (clause (2), later laws). Under Article 254(1) a repugnant State law is void “to the extent of the repugnancy”.
It is the rule in Article 254(1): when a State law on a Concurrent List subject is repugnant to a law made by Parliament, the Central law prevails and the State law is void “to the extent of the repugnancy”. In State of Kerala v. Mar Appraem Kuri Co. Ltd. (8 May 2012) a Constitution Bench said, “In case of repugnancy, the State Legislation would be void only to the extent of repugnancy.” Under Article 254(2) a State law repugnant to an earlier Central law (or an existing law) that was reserved for the President and assented to prevails in that State.
Yes, where the repugnancy extends to the whole Act. In Mar Appraem Kuri (2012) the Supreme Court held that because the Central Chit Funds Act, 1982 “covered the entire field of “chits””, the Kerala Chitties Act, 1975 “became void and stood impliedly repealed”, subject to Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. It described the Central law as one “whereunder there is a pro tanto repeal of the State Act”.
Yes. In a suit for recovery of money, a defendant may set off “any ascertained sum of money legally recoverable by him from the plaintiff”, within the court’s pecuniary limits and where both parties fill the same character as in the suit, by stating it in the written statement at the first hearing, or later with the Court’s permission (Order VIII Rule 6, CPC). The court gives final judgment on both the claim and the set-off. A claim that is not ascertained, such as damages, can be raised as a counter-claim under Order VIII Rule 6A.
Pro tanto means “to that extent”: an effect limited to a particular part or amount, such as a State law void only to the extent of its repugnancy (Article 254(1)). Pro rata means “in proportion”: a division among several persons according to their shares or claims, such as debts of a deceased paid “equally and rateably” (Section 323, Indian Succession Act, 1925) or execution assets “rateably distributed” among decree-holders (Section 73, CPC).
“उस सीमा तक” or “उतनी मात्रा तक” (to that extent). No official Hindi equivalent of the Latin phrase was found, but the official Hindi text of the Constitution expresses the same idea: under Article 254(1) a repugnant State law is void “उस विरोध की मात्रा तक” (to the extent of that repugnancy), and under Article 13(2) a law is void “उल्लंघन की मात्रा तक” (to the extent of the contravention).
Partial failure of a gift in a will. Under Section 155 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, if a testator receives part of a thing specifically bequeathed, the legacy is adeemed “to the extent of the sum so received”. Sections 156 and 159 apply the same idea to funds and stock.
Not in the official sources checked for this post. Among central Acts on India Code, the phrase appears in the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (Sections 155, 156 and 159, on ademption of legacies) and in the historical text of the Bombay Civil Courts’ Act, 1869 (Section 19, on jurisdiction). A few State Acts use it in other contexts, such as Section 209(3) of the Goa Succession, Special Notaries and Inventory Proceeding Act, 2012 (a will “shall stand revoked pro tanto”). Under the Indian Contract Act a part payment discharges the whole debt where the creditor accepts it “in satisfaction of the whole debt” (Section 63, illustration (b)).
Conclusion
Pro tanto means “to that extent”. Indian law mostly says it in English, and the clearest examples are constitutional: a State law repugnant to a Central law on a Concurrent List subject is void “to the extent of the repugnancy” (Article 254(1)), unless, against an earlier Central law or an existing law, the President’s assent saves it in that State (Article 254(2)), and laws inconsistent with fundamental rights are void “to the extent of such inconsistency” (Article 13). As the Supreme Court explained in Mar Appraem Kuri (2012), the extent can be one section or a whole Act, depending on how far the conflict goes.
The phrase appears by name in the Indian Succession Act’s rules on ademption (Sections 155, 156 and 159). Its companion, pro rata, is about sharing in proportion.
Sources used for this post: the Constitution of India, Articles 13, 239AA(3)(c), 251 and 254, from the Legislative Department’s English edition on India Code (“The Constitution of India in English 2026”, as on 1 May 2026), and Articles 13 and 254 from its Hindi edition on India Code (“The Constitution of India in Hindi 2026”, preface dated 1 May 2024; pages read from the printed page images); the Indian Succession Act, 1925, Sections 57, 58, 152, 155, 156, 159, 323 and 327 and Schedule III (India Code, A1925-39.pdf, as on 19 June 2026); the Bombay Civil Courts’ Act, 1869, Section 19 (India Code, historical text, item 2f8561f9-bdb6-49b5-9be4-c1c410a83369, “Subject to verification and confirmation by the Department”); the Goa Succession, Special Notaries and Inventory Proceeding Act, 2012 (Goa Act 23 of 2016), Section 209(3) (India Code, State record, text “amended up to 2024”); the Indian Contract Act, 1872, Sections 27, 28, 59, 60, 61 and 63 (India Code, a1872-9.pdf); the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 73 and Order VIII Rules 6 and 6A (India Code, as on 10 January 2026); and State of Kerala & Ors. v. M/s. Mar Appraem Kuri Co. Ltd. & Anr., Civil Appeal No. 6660 of 2005, Supreme Court of India (Constitution Bench), judgment dated 8 May 2012, official copy at https://api.sci.gov.in/jonew/judis/39311.pdf.
