1996 Supreme(SC) 2064

1997(1) Supreme 121
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.P. Jeevan Reddy and S.K. Paripoornan, JJ.
State of Bihar & Ors. etc. etc. -Appellants
versus
Bihar Distillery Ltd. etc. etc. -Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 15112-15 of 1996
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 11013-11016 of 1996)
Decided on 3-12-1996
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : S.B. Sanyal, Sr. Advocate and B.B. Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondents :Y.V. Giri, Sr. Advocate, Jyoti Saran, Praveen Kumar, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
The approach of the Court, while examining the challenge to the constitutionality of an enactment, is to start with the presumption of constitutionality and any defects of drafting should be ironed out as part of the attempt to sustain the validity/constitutionality of the enactment.

Headnote:CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY-Approach of Court, while examining challenge to constitutionality of an enactment, is to start with presumption of constitutionality-Any defects of drafting should be ironed out as part of attempt to sustain validity-Unconstitutionality must be plainly and clearly established before an enactment is declared as void-Court must recognize fundamental nature and importance of legislative process and accord due regard and deference to it-Bihar Excise (Amendment and Validating) Act, 1995 is a valid legislation-It provides statutory basis and legislative imprematur to price fixation of country liquor-It also provides for recovery and deduction of maintenance charged of warehouses-Impugned judgment of High Court holding it as a purposeless piece of legislation by pointing out some drafting errors and some imperfection in language employed, not sustainable.

       Held : The approach of the Court, while examining the challenge to the constitutionality of an enactment, is to start with the presumption of constitutionality. The Court should try to sustain its validity to the extent possible. It should strike down the enactment only when it is not possible to sustain it. The Court should not approach the enactment with a view to pick holes or to search for defects of drafting, much less inexactitude of language employed. Indeed, any such defects of drafting should be ironed out as part of the attempt to sustain the validity/constitutionality of the enactment. After all, an Act made by the Legislature represents the will of the people and that cannot be lightly interfered with. The unconstitutionality must be plainly and clearly established before an enactment is declared as void. The same approach holds good while ascertaining the intent and purpose of an enactment or its scope and application. Now, the result of the impugned Judgment is that the Amending Act has become an exercise in futility-a purposeless piece of Legislation. And this result has been arrived at by pointing out some drafting errors and some imperfection in the language employed. If only the High Court had looked into the minutes of the meeting dated 15th December, 1989 and the two letters of the Commissioner aforementioned, it would have become clear that the Amending Act was doing no more than repeating contents of the said letters and placing the legislative imprimatur on them. As the impugned judgment itself suggests, part of the imperfection of language is perhaps attributable to translation from Hindi to English. Indeed, it is surprising that the Court has not even referred to the long preamble to the Act which clearly sets out the context and purpose of the said enactment. It was put in at such length only with a view to aid the interpretation of its provisions. It was not done without a purpose. To call the entire exercise a mere waste is, to say the least, most unwarranted besides being uncharitable. The Court must recognize the fundamental nature and importance of legislative process and accord due regard and deference to it, just as the Legislature and the Executive are expected to show due regard and deference to the Judiciary. It cannot also be forgotten that our constitution recognizes and gives effect to the concept of equality between the three wings of the State and the concept of checks and balances inherent in such scheme. (Para 13)

       Now coming to the validity of the Amending Act we are unable to see on what ground can its validity impeached. All that it does is to provide statutory basis and legislative imprematur to the price fixation done by the Commissioner and its break-up. It also provides for recovery and deduction of the 0.70 paise component on account of maintenance charges of warehouses. It can neither be suggested that the Bihar Legislature did not have the legislative competence to enact the said Amending Act nor can it be suggested that the Act violates any of the fundamental rights enshrined in para III. The general averment of Mr. Y.U. Giri that the Act is arbitrary is too vague to merit any acceptance, apart from the fact that an act of Legislature cannot be struck down merely saying it is arbitrary. (Para 16)