1989 (8) TMI 359 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Challenge to the Constitution (Sixty-Fourth Amendment) Bill, 1989.
2. Federal structure and basic features of the Constitution.
3. Legislative and constituent power of Parliament under Article 368.
4. Jurisdiction and maintainability of the writ petition.
5. Cause of action and judicial review at the Bill stage.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Challenge to the Constitution (Sixty-Fourth Amendment) Bill, 1989:
The writ petitioner challenged the Constitution (Sixty-Fourth Amendment) Bill, 1989, arguing that it is not an ordinary amendment but a maneuver to erode the foundation of the Constitution by legislating about Panchayats, which are integral to local government and fall under Entry No. 5 of List-II of the Seventh Schedule. The petitioner contended that the Bill interferes with the basic structure and features of the Constitution, violating Article 40 and the Directive Principles of State Policy.

2. Federal structure and basic features of the Constitution:
The petitioner argued that the Bill seeks to establish legislative and executive supremacy of the Union over the States in the matter of village Panchayats administration, thereby destroying the essential federal structure of the Constitution. The proposed Articles 243B, 243E, 243J, and 243M make the State Legislature's power subordinate to the provisions of this constitutional amendment, conferring authority upon Central Agencies like the Comptroller & Auditor-General of India and the Election Commission.

3. Legislative and constituent power of Parliament under Article 368:
The petitioner asserted that the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution under Article 368 does not extend to altering the basic structure of the Constitution. The petitioner cited the Supreme Court's judgments in Keshavananda Bharati, Minerva Mills Ltd., and Wamon Rao cases, which established that the Parliament's constituent power is distinct from its ordinary legislative power and is subject to limitations.

4. Jurisdiction and maintainability of the writ petition:
The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the High Court has jurisdiction under Article 226(2) of the Constitution to entertain the writ petition since a substantial part of the cause of action arose within its territorial jurisdiction. The petitioner contended that the threat posed by the Bill forms a substantial part of the cause of action, justifying pre-enactment judicial review to prevent irreparable damage to the Constitution.

5. Cause of action and judicial review at the Bill stage:
The learned Attorney-General, representing the respondents, argued that the Parliament, which is sovereign, cannot be restrained by a Court of Law at the Bill stage. The respondents contended that the Bill, being a proposal before Parliament, is not justiciable until it becomes an Act. The Attorney-General cited various judgments, asserting that the High Court lacks jurisdiction to interfere with the legislative process of Parliament and that any challenge to the Bill is premature.

Judgment:
The Court held that the writ petition is premature and not maintainable. It emphasized that the legislative competency of Parliament should not be interfered with by the High Court at the Bill stage. The Court stated that the Constitution (Sixty-Fourth Amendment) Bill, 1989, if enacted and enforced, can be challenged for its vires in a Court of Law. The Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that no cause of action arises until the Bill is enacted into law and enforced. The Court also disapproved of the personal abuses hurled at Mr. Rajiv Gandhi in the writ petition, noting that such allegations had no bearing on the reliefs sought and appeared to be political gimmicks.

Conclusion:
The Court dismissed the writ petition as premature and not maintainable, emphasizing that judicial review of the Bill is not permissible until it is enacted and enforced. The Court also criticized the petitioner for including unnecessary personal allegations in the petition.