2009 (7) TMI 747 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the State can in exercise of its sovereign legislative power enact an amendment Act seeking to remove and cure the defects in the previous law despite there being a judgment on the previous law?? Held that - It is always open to the legislature to alter the law retrospectively as long as the very premise on which the earlier judgment declared a certain action as invalid is removed. The situation would be one of a fundamental change in the circumstances and such a validating Act was not open to challenge on the ground that it amounted to usurpation of judicial powers Thus in the instant case the amending Act read with its validation clause correctly passed the tests laid down by this Court. The appeals are allowed. The judgment of the High Court is thus set aside

Issues Involved:
1. Constitutional validity of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1996.
2. Allegation of the amendment being violative of the basic structure of the Constitution.
3. Specific challenges to the amendments made to various sections of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1953.
4. Allegation of the amendment being a piece of colorable legislation.
5. Retrospective application of the amendment and its reasonableness.
6. Conflict between original and amended sections of the Principal Act.
7. Allegation of excessive delegation of powers to the Collector.
8. Impact of the amendment on the rights of estate right holders.
9. Removal of the remedy of review under Section 16 of the Principal Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Constitutional Validity of the Amendment Act:
The appeals challenged the constitutional validity of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1996. The petitioners argued that the amendments were in conflict with the original provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1953 and sought to nullify a previous judgment by the High Court, which is beyond the legislative power.

2. Violation of the Basic Structure of the Constitution:
The petitioners contended that the amendment violated the basic structure of the Constitution by attempting to nullify a judicial decision. They cited that a legislature cannot render ineffective an earlier judicial decision by making a new law, as it would encroach upon judicial powers.

3. Specific Challenges to Amendments:
The amendments to Sections 32, 33, 34, 36, 38, and 47 of the Principal Act were challenged on grounds of disturbing the scheme of Chapter IV of the Principal Act and conferring arbitrary powers on the Collector (Revenue), which was alleged to be unconstitutional.

4. Allegation of Colorable Legislation:
The petitioners argued that the amendment was a piece of colorable legislation intended to nullify the High Court's judgment. The High Court, however, did not find this contention tenable and dismissed the allegation of mala fide intent.

5. Retrospective Application and Reasonableness:
The amendment was challenged for being retrospective from 1976, which was argued to be unreasonable and arbitrary. The petitioners claimed that this retrospective application adversely affected the rights of estate right holders and was unconstitutional.

6. Conflict Between Original and Amended Sections:
The petitioners highlighted inherent conflicts between the original and amended sections of the Principal Act. They argued that the amendments resulted in excessive delegation of powers to the Collector, which was against the scheme of the Principal Act.

7. Excessive Delegation of Powers:
The delegation of powers to the Collector under Sections 4(5), 34-A, and 47-A was challenged as being unfettered and capable of abuse. The petitioners argued that such delegation was against the basic scheme of the Principal Act.

8. Impact on Rights of Estate Right Holders:
The amendment was alleged to adversely affect the rights of estate right holders by regularizing and validating sub-divisions of estates styled as 'Upmahal,' which was argued to be illegal.

9. Removal of Review Remedy:
The amendment to Section 16 of the Principal Act, which removed the remedy of review by the Financial Commissioner, was challenged as being against the principles of natural justice and the basic structure of the Constitution.

Judgment Analysis:
The Supreme Court found that the High Court did not uphold all the contentions of the petitioners but declared the Amendment Act of 1996 ultra vires to the extent that it sought to nullify the previous judgment. The Supreme Court emphasized that the legislature has the power to amend laws retrospectively to remove defects pointed out in judicial decisions, provided it does not transgress constitutional limitations. The Court upheld the validity of the amendment, stating that it was necessary for effective implementation of the Principal Act and was not an encroachment on judicial powers. The appeals were allowed, and the High Court's judgment was set aside.

← Previous Next →