1949 (10) TMI 10 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the detention orders under the Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1947.
2. Competence of the Provincial Legislature to delegate the power to extend the duration of the Act to the Provincial Government.
3. Validity of the Madras Ordinance No. 1 of 1949 promulgated by the Governor.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Detention Orders under the Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1947:

The petitioners argued that the detention orders were illegal as they were passed after the Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1947, had ceased to be in force on 12th March 1948. The Act initially came into force on 12th March 1947, and was to remain in force for one year unless extended by the Provincial Government. The Provincial Government extended the Act for one year from 12th March 1948, and again from 12th March 1949, but the petitioners contended that the Act had expired and the extensions were invalid.

2. Competence of the Provincial Legislature to Delegate the Power to Extend the Duration of the Act to the Provincial Government:

The main contention was whether the Provincial Legislature could delegate the power to extend the duration of the Act to the Provincial Government. The Federal Court in Jatindranath Gupta v. Province of Bihar had held that such delegation was invalid. The Court distinguished between conditional legislation and delegation of legislative power, stating that the power to extend the life of an Act is a legislative power that cannot be delegated. The Court concluded that the Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1947, ceased to be in force on 11th March 1948, as the delegation of the power to extend the Act to the Provincial Government was invalid.

3. Validity of the Madras Ordinance No. 1 of 1949 Promulgated by the Governor:

The Governor of Madras promulgated Ordinance No. 1 of 1949 to remove doubts regarding the validity of the continuance of the Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1947, and to amend it. The petitioners argued that the Ordinance was promulgated by fraudulent exercise of power as the Governor prorogued the Legislature to clothe himself with the power to issue the Ordinance. The Court found no basis for this allegation, stating that the Governor had the right to prorogue the Legislature and issue an Ordinance if immediate action was necessary.

The Ordinance declared that the Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1947, remained in force from 12th March 1948, and amended the Act by omitting Sub-section (4) of Section 1. However, the Court held that the amending provisions of the Ordinance were of no effect as the original Act had ceased to be in force, and an amending Act cannot revive a dead Act. The Court upheld Section 3(b) of the Ordinance, which validated actions, proceedings, notifications, and orders made under the Act after 12th March 1948.

Conclusion:

The Court concluded that the Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1947, ceased to be in force on 11th March 1948, as the delegation of the power to extend the Act to the Provincial Government was invalid. The amending provisions of the Madras Ordinance No. 1 of 1949 were also invalid, but Section 3(b) of the Ordinance, which validated actions and orders made under the Act after 12th March 1948, was upheld. The petitions were to be heard and disposed of in light of these observations.