1940 (12) TMI 25 - Other - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Competence of the United Provinces Legislature to enact the Regularization of Remissions Act, 1938.
2. Validity of the Regularization of Remissions Act, 1938, under Section 292 of the Constitution Act.
3. Validity of the Regularization of Remissions Act, 1938, under Section 299 of the Constitution Act.
4. Applicability of the Regularization of Remissions Act, 1938, to pending actions.
5. Right of the United Provinces Government to appeal.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Competence of the United Provinces Legislature to Enact the Regularization of Remissions Act, 1938:
The principal question was whether the Regularization of Remissions Act, 1938, enacted by the United Provinces Legislature, was within its competence. The Act aimed to regularize remissions of rent made due to a fall in agricultural prices. The High Court held the Act to be beyond the Legislature's competence, as it attempted to legislate retrospectively, contrary to Section 292 of the Constitution Act. However, the Federal Court found that the Act fell within Item 21 of List II, which includes "Land, that is to say, rights in or over land, land tenures, including the relation of landlord and tenant, and the collection of rents." The Court emphasized that the Legislature has the power to legislate on ancillary matters comprehended within the general word "Land."

2. Validity of the Regularization of Remissions Act, 1938, under Section 292 of the Constitution Act:
Section 292 of the Constitution Act states that all laws in force immediately before the commencement of Part III of the Act shall continue until altered, repealed, or amended by a competent Legislature. The High Court interpreted this as a prohibition against retrospective legislation. However, the Federal Court disagreed, stating that the section merely ensures the continuity of existing laws until altered by competent authority and does not prohibit retrospective legislation. The Court held that the Regularization of Remissions Act did not repeal, alter, or amend any existing law but added a new case for remission of rent.

3. Validity of the Regularization of Remissions Act, 1938, under Section 299 of the Constitution Act:
The objection under Section 299(3) of the Constitution Act, which requires the prior sanction of the Governor for certain types of legislation, was dismissed. The Federal Court noted that the assent of the Governor-General had been obtained, thereby curing any procedural defect.

4. Applicability of the Regularization of Remissions Act, 1938, to Pending Actions:
The Federal Court noted the well-recognized presumption against construing an enactment as governing the rights of parties to a pending action unless explicitly stated. The Court found that the Regularization of Remissions Act did not contain express words to apply to pending actions. Therefore, the Act did not apply to the appeal pending before the High Court.

5. Right of the United Provinces Government to Appeal:
The United Provinces Government was impleaded as a party during the second appeal in the High Court. The Federal Court overruled the preliminary objection against the Government's right to appeal, emphasizing that the Government has a special interest in the validity of the enactment. The Court acknowledged the procedural anomaly but allowed the appeal to proceed, recognizing the Government's interest in the constitutional question.

Conclusion:
The Federal Court concluded that the Regularization of Remissions Act, 1938, was within the competence of the United Provinces Legislature and did not violate Section 292 of the Constitution Act. The Act was found to be valid, but it did not apply to pending actions. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and there was no order as to costs.