9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (6) TMI 327X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n. Section 31 reads as under : " Rules and regulations to be laid before Parliament. Every rule and every regulation made under this Act shall be laid, as soon as may be after it is made, before each House of Parliament, while it is in session, for a total period of thirty days which may be comprised in one session or in two or more successive sessions, and if, before the expiry of the session immediately following the session or the successive sessions aforesaid, both Houses agree in making any modification in the rule of regulation or both Houses agree that the rule or regulation should not be made, the rule or regulation shall thereafter have effect only in such modified form or be of no effect, as the case may be; so, however, that any such modification or annulment shall be without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under that rule or regulation." 3. The case of the petitioner is that according to the parliamentary proceedings, the copy of the Notification containing Rules and Regulations was tabled in the Lok Sabha on 27th November, 1992. It was thereafter removed from the Lok Sabha and placed in the Library on the very same day. In so far as the Ra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -1992 issued by the Rajya Sabha Secretariat. In the said letter under signature of K.K. Thakur, Deputy Secretary to the Government of India, it is set out that the Rules, Regulations and Bye-laws which are required to be laid in the Houses were sent by the Ministries/Department concerned directly to the Parliament Secretariats which take necessary action to list them for laying/re-laying, wherever necessary, in the Agenda Paper of the respective Houses. It was therefore pointed out that the said information could be received from the Secretariats of the two Houses. It was however pointed out that no motion for modification/rejection of the impugned regulations was moved in either of the Houses after the regulations were placed in the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha on 27th November, 1992 and 16th December, 1992 respectively. The fifth session of Parliament started on 24-11-1992 and was closed sine die on 23-12-1992. There were only 18 actual sitting days. The Parliamentary Secretariat had issued a notice known as list of business dated 26-11-1992 and circulated that list of business amongst the then members of Parliament in 1992 declaring that contents of the impugned regulations w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bly. The Apex Court was called upon to consider the procedure followed in England and whether it would be the same procedure in India considering the constitutional provisions. The Apex Court negatived the contention that unless the Legislature by law has made a contrary provision, the English convention with regard to the effect of dissolution shall prevail in the Country. The Apex Court noted that in India when Parliament is dissolved, it is only the Legislative Assembly which would stand dissolved and not the Rajya Sabha and that the position in England is different. The Apex Court further noted the provision of article 196 of the Constitution which sets out that the Bill pending in the Legislature of a State will not lapse by reason of the prorogation of House or Houses thereof. It may be noted that we are really not called upon to consider the case of prorogation of House or dissolution and the effect on the pending Bill as article 196 of the Constitution covers such cases. The issue in the present case is of tabling of subordinate legislation in both the Houses of Parliament considering section 31 of the Securities and Exchange Act, 1992. The case of Purushothaman Nambudiri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ures respectively. The issue of tabling of subordinate legislation has come up before the Apex Court from time to time. In Jan Mohammad Noor Mohammad Begban v. State of Gujarat AIR 1966 SC 385, the State Government was authorised to make rules for carrying out the provisions of the Act. Sub-section (5) of section 26 of the relevant Act provided that the rules shall be laid before each House of Provincial Legislature at Session next following. Rules were framed by Provincial Government in 1941, when no Legislature was in Session it being suspended during emergency arising out of World War II. Session convened for first time was prorogued. Second Session of Assembly was convened. Rules were placed on table of Assembly in Second Session. The contention was that the rules would not be valid unless the rules were tabled. On a reading of the section, the Apex Court held that the section does not prescribe that rules acquire validity only from date on which they were placed before Houses of Legislature. It further held that sub-section (5) of section 26 could not be regarded as mandatory. In Hukam Chand v. Union of India [1972] 2 SCC 601 again what was in issue was tabling of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of the Quarry Owners Association v. State of Bihar AIR 2000 SC 2870. In view of earlier noted object of laying, the Apex Court in this case explained the law as follows : ". . . Where any document, rule or notification requires placement before any House or when placed, the said House inherently gets the jurisdiction over the same. Each member of the House, subject to its procedure gets right to discuss the same, they may put questions to the concerned Ministry. Irrespective of the fact that such rules or notifications may not be under purview of its modification, such members may seek explanation from such Ministry of their inaction, arbitrariness, transgressing limits of their statutory orbit on any such other matter. Short of modification power, it has a right even to condemn the Ministry. No doubt in the case where House is entrusted with power to annul, modify or approve any rule, it plays positive role and have full control over it, but even where the matter is merely placed before any House, its positive control over the executive, makes even mere laying to play a very vital forceful role which keeps a check over the conc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therefore clear that in the instant case laying is in the form of negative laying. Rule 234(1) of the Parliamentary Procedure provides that when the rule, regulation, sub-rule and bye-law etc. is framed in pursuance of the Constitution or of the legislative functions delegated by Parliament to a subordinate authority is laid before the House, the period specified in the Constitution or the relevant Act for which it is required to be laid shall be completed before the House is adjourned sine die and later prorogued. What section 31 of the Act contemplates is that after it is laid, the period of 30 days may be comprised in one session or in two or more successive sessions. Therefore compliance must be in terms of rule 234(1). Rule 234(2) of Parliamentary Procedure would not apply as that speaks about those situations where the period has to be completed in one session. Section 31 of the Securities and Exchange Act, 1992 on the contrary permits the period to be completed either in one session or in two or more successive sessions. That requirement has been met. 9. One other aspect of the matter. Does the regulation came into force only after the period is completed as set out ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
