1951 (10) TMI 22 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Competence of the provisional Parliament to amend the Constitution under Article 368.
2. Validity of the President's adaptation of Article 368 under Article 392.
3. Whether the Amendment Act violates Article 13(2) by abridging fundamental rights.
4. Necessity of ratification for the Amendment Act under the proviso to Article 368.
5. Whether Articles 31A and 31B are ultra vires as they relate to matters in List II of the Seventh Schedule.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Competence of the provisional Parliament to amend the Constitution under Article 368:
The petitioners argued that the power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 was conferred on a duly constituted Parliament consisting of two Houses, not the provisional Parliament. The Court rejected this argument, stating that the Constitution envisaged the provisional Parliament to exercise all powers of the Parliament, including amending the Constitution. The Court emphasized that Article 379 explicitly provided for the provisional Parliament to function with all the powers of the Parliament until both Houses were duly constituted.

2. Validity of the President's adaptation of Article 368 under Article 392:
The petitioners contended that the President's adaptation of Article 368 was beyond his powers since no actual difficulties in the working of the Constitution were present at the time of its commencement. The Court dismissed this contention, noting that difficulties could exist before their removal became necessary. The adaptation was deemed valid as it was within the President's powers under Article 392 to adapt provisions for the transitional period.

3. Whether the Amendment Act violates Article 13(2) by abridging fundamental rights:
The petitioners claimed that the Amendment Act, by inserting Articles 31A and 31B, violated Article 13(2), which prohibits the State from making laws that abridge fundamental rights. The Court held that "law" in Article 13(2) referred to ordinary legislative power, not constituent power. Therefore, amendments to the Constitution made under Article 368 were not subject to Article 13(2), and the Amendment Act did not violate this provision.

4. Necessity of ratification for the Amendment Act under the proviso to Article 368:
The petitioners argued that Articles 31A and 31B required ratification by State Legislatures as they affected judicial powers under Articles 132, 136, and 226. The Court found this argument misconceived, stating that the new articles did not change these judicial powers but merely excluded certain laws from the purview of Part III, thus not requiring ratification.

5. Whether Articles 31A and 31B are ultra vires as they relate to matters in List II of the Seventh Schedule:
The petitioners contended that Articles 31A and 31B were ultra vires as they related to land, a matter in List II, which is under State jurisdiction. The Court rejected this argument, clarifying that the new articles were amendments to the Constitution, which Parliament was competent to enact. The fact that the laws saved by these articles related to matters in List II did not affect their validity as constitutional amendments.

Conclusion:
The petitions were dismissed with costs, and the Court upheld the validity of the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951, including the insertion of Articles 31A and 31B. The provisional Parliament was deemed competent to amend the Constitution, the President's adaptation of Article 368 was valid, and the Amendment Act did not violate Article 13(2) or require ratification by State Legislatures.