9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Constitutionality of Section 2 of the East Punjab Movable Property (Requisitioning) Act, 1947. 2. Severability of Section 2 from the rest of the Act. 3. Validity of the entire Act under Article 14 of the Constitution. 4. Guiding principles for the exercise of discretion under the Act. 5. Compensation mechanism under the Act. Detailed Analysis: 1. Constitutionality of Section 2 of the East Punjab Movable Property (Requisitioning) Act, 1947: The Supreme Court examined whether Section 2 of the Act violated Article 14 of the Constitution. Section 2 allowed the State Government to requisition any movable property without specifying the purpose, thus conferring "uncontrolled power" on the executive. The Court found that the Act did not provide any guidelines or principles for the exercise of this power, making it arbitrary and discriminatory. It was noted that the "total absence of guidelines for the exercise of power of requisitioning of movable property" vitiated Section 2 of the Act. The Court emphasized that "arbitrariness and the power to discriminate are writ large on the face of the said provision of the Act," thereby violating Article 14. 2. Severability of Section 2 from the Rest of the Act: The Court held that Section 2 was not severable from the rest of the Act. The High Court had earlier observed that the other provisions of the Act were merely ancillary to the powers of requisitioning and acquisition of property contained in Sections 2 and 3. Therefore, if Section 2 was found unconstitutional, the entire Act would be rendered void. The Supreme Court agreed with this reasoning, stating that "the entire Act was held to be unconstitutional and void." 3. Validity of the Entire Act Under Article 14 of the Constitution: The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment that the entire Act was unconstitutional. The Act conferred arbitrary and uncontrolled power to requisition movable property, which could lead to discrimination. The Court noted, "The drastic and unusual features of the Act highlight the fact that the Act confers arbitrary powers for requisitioning of movable property upon the authorities under the Act." The absence of any guiding principles or policy for the exercise of this power made the Act vulnerable to being struck down under Article 14. 4. Guiding Principles for the Exercise of Discretion Under the Act: The Court emphasized the necessity for legislative acts to provide clear guidelines for the exercise of discretionary powers. It stated, "Discretion which is absolute uncontrolled and without any guidelines in the exercise of the powers can easily degenerate into arbitrariness." The Court reiterated that the absence of any principle or policy for the guidance of the authority concerned in the exercise of discretion vitiates an enactment and makes it vulnerable to attack on the ground of violation of Article 14. 5. Compensation Mechanism Under the Act: The Court also found fault with the compensation mechanism provided under the Act. Section 4 stated that the compensation to be paid shall be "such as the State Government may determine." The Court noted that "no suitable machinery is also provided in the Act for determining the compensation payable to the owner of the movable property nor does the Act contain any guiding principles for determining the amount of compensation." This lack of a clear and fair compensation mechanism further contributed to the Act's unconstitutionality. Separate Judgment by Mathew, J.: Mathew, J. dissented, arguing that Section 2 should be read as implicitly requiring requisitioning for a public purpose. He stated, "Government exists and its only title to exist is its claim to advance the public good and serve the public interest." He believed that the expression "necessary or expedient" provided adequate guidance for the exercise of the power. He upheld the action taken by the District Magistrate and would have allowed the appeals, asserting that the requisition of the truck was for a public purpose and reasonable. Conclusion: In accordance with the majority decision, the appeals were dismissed with costs. The Court upheld the High Court's judgment that the entire East Punjab Movable Property (Requisitioning) Act, 1947, was unconstitutional due to the arbitrary and uncontrolled powers conferred by Section 2, which violated Article 14 of the Constitution.
|
