1969 (9) TMI 116 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) Amending and Validating Ordinance, 1965 and Act XXVIII of 1965.
2. Jurisdiction of the State Legislature to validate an order of transfer quashed by a writ of certiorari.
3. Scope and effect of Validating Act and Ordinance in relation to court judgments.
4. Competence of the legislature to pass retrospective laws and amend statutes.
5. Authority of the legislature to pass Amending and Validating Acts.
6. Effect and validity of retrospective legislation on court judgments.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The appellant challenged the West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) Amending and Validating Ordinance, 1965, and Act XXVIII of 1965. These laws aimed to validate the withdrawal or transfer of cases from Special Courts. The Ordinance and Act retroactively validated past actions taken by the State Government regarding case transfers.

Issue 2:
The appellant argued that the State Legislature and Governor could not validate an order of transfer previously quashed by a writ of certiorari. However, the High Court held that the retrospective operation of the Ordinance and Act validated the original transfer order from its inception.

Issue 3:
The Fourth Special Court's interpretation of the Validating Act and Ordinance was challenged. The High Court correctly held that the legislation validated past actions without affecting court judgments. The legislature's power to amend laws retrospectively was upheld, ensuring the legality of past transactions.

Issue 4:
The judgment highlighted the competence of a State Legislature to pass laws within its constitutional authority, subject to limitations. The legislature can enact laws prospectively or retrospectively, with the power to amend statutes to remedy defects or validate past actions.

Issue 5:
The concept of Amending and Validating Acts was discussed, emphasizing their role in amending laws retrospectively to protect and validate past actions. The legislature's jurisdiction to pass such Acts, even after court judgments, was affirmed through legal precedents.

Issue 6:
The judgment cited various cases, such as Udai Ram Sharma v. Union of India, to illustrate the effect and validity of retrospective legislation on court judgments. It established that if a law does not violate constitutional limitations, it can override court decisions and cure identified defects.

In conclusion, the appeal challenging the Validating Ordinance and Act was dismissed, affirming the legislature's authority to pass retrospective laws and validate past actions, even in the presence of court judgments.