9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Nature of unconstitutionality under Article 13 of the Constitution. 2. Validity of the amendment to a void statute. 3. Effect of judicial decisions on the existence of a statute. 4. Legislative competence to amend or re-enact a void statute. Detailed Analysis: 1. Nature of Unconstitutionality Under Article 13 of the Constitution: The primary issue is the nature of unconstitutionality attached to a statute under Article 13 and how it can be cured. The statute in question is the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1958 (Principal Act). Sections 5 and 7(2) of the Principal Act were found to contravene Article 14 of the Constitution and were declared void under Article 13(2). The unconstitutionality was due to the arbitrary power given to the Government to choose between summary procedures and regular civil suits for eviction and recovery of damages, leading to discrimination. 2. Validity of the Amendment to a Void Statute: The petitioners argued that the entire Principal Act was void and non-existent in law, and thus, Parliament could not amend it but had to re-enact it entirely. The respondents contended that the Principal Act, although void, continued to exist on the statute book and was available for amendment. The court examined whether a void statute could be amended or if it required re-enactment. The court concluded that a void statute is "ineffectual, nugatory, and devoid of any legal force or binding effect" but still exists on the statute book for the purpose of legislative action, including amendment. 3. Effect of Judicial Decisions on the Existence of a Statute: The court discussed the distinction between the effects of legislative action (repeal or amendment) and judicial decisions (declaration of unconstitutionality). A judicial decision does not physically remove a statute from the statute book but renders it unenforceable. The court emphasized that only the Legislature has the power to repeal a statute, while the judiciary can declare it void, affecting its enforceability but not its existence on the statute book. 4. Legislative Competence to Amend or Re-enact a Void Statute: The court analyzed whether Parliament could amend a void statute or if it had to re-enact it. It concluded that the Legislature has the power to amend a void statute to remove its unconstitutionality. The amendment of the Principal Act by the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Amendment Act, 1968, which added Section 10E to bar civil court jurisdiction, was held to be valid. The court held that the amendment cured the unconstitutionality of the Principal Act, making it valid and enforceable. Conclusion: The court dismissed the petitioners' contention that the Principal Act was non-existent and could not be amended. It upheld the validity of the amendment, stating that the Principal Act, although void, continued to exist on the statute book for the purpose of legislative action. The court emphasized the distinction between legislative repeal and judicial declaration of unconstitutionality, affirming that the Legislature has the competence to amend a void statute to cure its defects. The proceedings for eviction under the amended Act were deemed valid and could not be quashed.
|
