9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2003 (11) TMI 588 - SC - Indian LawsWhether the right to determine the body which shall administer the funds or property of the dissolved society which they had under the pre-existing law is a right to acquire, hold and dispose of property within the meaning of Article 19(1)(f), and if so whether the legislation is not saved by Article 19(5)?
Issues Involved:
1. Constitutional validity of the Indian Council of World Affairs Ordinance, 2001. 2. Constitutional validity of the Indian Council of World Affairs Act, 2001. 3. Alleged violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(c), and 300A of the Constitution. 4. Legislative competence of Parliament to enact the impugned legislation. 5. Alleged malafides and political motivations behind the legislation. 6. Doctrine of Separation of Powers and its application to the impugned Act. 7. Whether the impugned Act is arbitrary and violative of Article 14. 8. Effect of a previous High Court judgment on the impugned legislation. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Constitutional Validity of the Indian Council of World Affairs Ordinance, 2001: The petition challenging the Ordinance was rendered infructuous as the Ordinance was replaced by an Act of Parliament. The Court directed that the petition be treated as disposed of without any adjudication on merits. 2. Constitutional Validity of the Indian Council of World Affairs Act, 2001: The impugned Act was challenged on grounds of violating Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(c), and 300A. The Court upheld the Act, finding it within the legislative competence of Parliament and not violative of the Constitution. 3. Alleged Violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(c), and 300A of the Constitution: - Article 19(1)(a) and (c): The Court held that the right to form associations does not include the right to achieve every object for which the association was formed. The impugned Act did not interfere with the formation of the society or its membership, only with the activities conducted through the institution. The legislation was found to be reasonable and in the interest of the general public. - Article 300A: The Court found no violation of Article 300A, as the petitioners did not provide any document of title to the property. The Union of India had legislative competence to enact the law, and the petition raised disputed questions of fact unsuitable for writ jurisdiction. - Article 14: The Act did not violate Article 14 as it was based on an intelligible differentia and had a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved. The Court found the legislation to be neither arbitrary nor unreasonable. 4. Legislative Competence of Parliament to Enact the Impugned Legislation: The Court held that the impugned Act falls within the purview of Entries 62 and 63 of List I of the Seventh Schedule, which allows Parliament to declare institutions of national importance and legislate accordingly. 5. Alleged Malafides and Political Motivations Behind the Legislation: The petitioners alleged political malice, but the Court found no particulars to support this claim. The doctrine of Colourable Legislation was discussed, and it was concluded that the motives of the legislature are irrelevant if the legislature is competent to enact the law. 6. Doctrine of Separation of Powers and Its Application to the Impugned Act: The Court rejected the argument that the Act violated the doctrine of Separation of Powers. It emphasized that the legislature has the power to enact laws within its competence and that the judiciary should respect this legislative function. 7. Whether the Impugned Act is Arbitrary and Violative of Article 14: The Court found that the Act was not arbitrary and did not violate Article 14. It was based on a rational classification and aimed to address the mismanagement and mal-administration of an institution of national importance. 8. Effect of a Previous High Court Judgment on the Impugned Legislation: The Court overruled the previous judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, which had annulled a similar Ordinance. It held that the judgment was incorrect and that the impugned Act was valid and within the legislative competence of Parliament. Conclusion: The writ petition was dismissed with costs, and the impugned Act was upheld as constitutionally valid.
|
