Which of the following best describes the doctrine of 'pith and substance' as applied in interpreting the legislative lists of the Seventh Schedule?

1. The 'pith and substance' rule, traced to *Prafulla Kumar v. Bank of Khulna, AIR 1947 PC 60*, holds that **where a law in its true nature and character falls within an item on which the enacting legislature is competent, it is not invalid merely because it incidentally touches a matter outside that competence**. 2. The classic illustration in the ICSI text is *G. Chawla v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1959 SC 544*: a State law restricting sound amplifiers under entry 6 of List II ('Public Health and Sanitation') was upheld even though it incidentally touched 'broadcasting' (entry 31 of List I), because its pith and substance was public health. 3. Option A inverts the rule; option C wrongly hands the role to Parliament; option D wrongly limits the doctrine to tax statutes. _Source: ICSI CS Executive — Lesson 2, 'Interpretation of the Legislative Lists — Pith and Substance Rule', p. 66._