1. Challenge to the constitutional validity of a Validating Act and an Abolition Act concerning the constitution of a Legislative Assembly and agrarian land reforms. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
1960 Supreme(SC) 139
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
28th April, 1960.
B.P. SINHA, C.J.I., P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. SUBBA RAO, K.C. DAS GUPTA AND J.C. SHAH, JJ.
1. Jadab Singh and others (in Petn. No. 161 of 58); (2) Amarsingh and others (In Petn. No. 16 of 59); (3) Ravi Singh and others (In Petn. No. 17 of 59); (4) Gian Singh and others (In Petn. No. 35 of 59); (5) Kanwar Ishwar Singh and another (In Petn. No. 36 of 59); (6) K. Partap Singh and others (In Petn. No. 58 of 59); (7) K. Romharashan Singh and others (In Petn. No. 69 of 59); (8) Hirday Ram and others (IN Petn. No. 102 of 59) and (9) Kanshi Ram and others (In Petn. No. 109 of 59), Petitioners
Versus
H.P. Administration, and another (In all Petns.), Respondents.
Petns. Nos. 161 of 1958 and 16, 17, 35, 36, 58, 69, 102 and 109 of 1959.
Advocates appeared
M/s. Achhru Ram and D. R. Prem, Senior Advocates (Mr. Ganpat Rai Advocate, with them), for Petitioners (In Petns. Nos. 161 of 58 and 16,17, 35, 58, 69, 102 and 109 of 1959); Mr. D. R. Prem, Senior Advocate (M/s. R. Thiagarajan and T. Satyanarayana, Advocates with him), for Petitioners (In Petn. No. 36 of 59); Mr. C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India (M/s. R. Ganapathy Iyer, R. H. Dhebar and T.M. Sen, Advocates with him), for Respondents (In all petitions).
Advocates:
ACHHRU RAM, C.K.DAFTARY, D.R.Prem, GANPAT RAI, R.Ganapathy Iyer, R.H.Dhebar, R.THIAGARAJAN, T.M.SEN, T.SATYANARAYANA
ACHHRU RAM, C.K.DAFTARY, D.R.Prem, GANPAT RAI, R.Ganapathy Iyer, R.H.Dhebar, R.THIAGARAJAN, T.M.SEN, T.SATYANARAYANA
Parliament has the legislative competence to retrospectively validate the proceedings of a Legislative Assembly of a Part C State where a procedural defect occurred. Additionally, agrarian reform laws transferring land interests to tenants are protected from fundamental rights challenges under Article 31A of the Constitution.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 240, 248, 31, 19, 14 and 31A - Government of Part C States Act, 1951 - Sections 4 and 9 - Representation of the People Act, 1951 - Section 74 - Validating Act - Legislative competence of Parliament - Validation of acts of a Legislative Assembly - Parliament is competent to remove a legal disability arising from the failure to issue a mandatory notification under the Representation of the People Act to validate the proceedings of a Legislative Assembly of a Part C State (Paras 7, 8).
(B) Residuary Powers - Under Article 248 and Item 97 of List I of the 7th Schedule, Parliament has the power to enact legislation to validate the acts of a body purporting to function as a legislature where such matter is not covered by the Concurrent or State Lists (Para 8).
(C) Retrospective Validation - The authority of Parliament to validate the proceedings of a body that functioned as a Legislative Assembly is not extinguished even if the state in question has ceased to exist or merged into another state (Para 9).
(D) Fundamental Rights - Statutes aimed at agrarian reform by transferring land interests from landowners to tenants are protected under Article 31A and cannot be challenged on the ground of violating Articles 14, 19, or 31, provided they have received Presidential assent (Para 10).
Facts of the case:
A new state was formed by uniting two existing states. The members of the old state's assembly were deemed elected to the new assembly. However, due to the non-publication of a notification under the Representation of the People Act, the assembly was held to be improperly constituted, rendering its legislative acts, including an agrarian reform act, invalid. Subsequently, Parliament enacted a Validating Act to cure this defect and validate the assembly's proceedings. The petitioners challenged the validity of both the Validating Act and the agrarian reform act.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that Parliament had the legislative competence to remove the procedural bar caused by the missing notification. The Validating Act did not violate the Constitution, and the agrarian reform act was protected under Article 31A as it served a public purpose of land redistribution and had received the necessary Presidential assent.
Issues: Whether Parliament could retrospectively validate the proceedings of a Legislative Assembly that was not duly constituted due to a procedural omission; whether such power survived the merger of the state; and whether the agrarian reform act violated fundamental rights.
Ratio Decidendi: Parliament possesses the power under Article 240 and its residuary powers under Article 248 to validate the acts of a legislature of a Part C state. A procedural failure to issue a notification does not create an absolute bar that Parliament cannot remove. Furthermore, agrarian reform laws transferring land to tenants are shielded from challenges under Articles 14, 19, and 31 by virtue of Article 31A.
Result: Petitions dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether Parliament can retrospectively validate the constitution of a Legislative Assembly and whether the Abolition Act violates fundamental rights under Articles 19 and 31. (Para 5 )
3. Parliament possesses residuary powers to remove procedural disabilities and validate legislative acts; agrarian reform laws reserved for Presidential assent are protected under Article 31A. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 )
4. Parliament can validate the proceedings of a Legislative Assembly using residuary powers, and agrarian reform laws are protected from fundamental rights challenges under Article 31A. (Para 7 , 8 , 10 )
5. Petitions challenging the Validating Act and the Abolition Act are dismissed with costs. (Para 11 )
6. Can Parliament validate the acts of a Legislative Assembly that was not duly constituted due to a procedural failure?
Yes. Parliament is competent to remove procedural bars, such as the failure to issue a notification under the Representation of the People Act, and validate the acts done by the Legislature using its residuary powers under the Constitution. (Para 7 , 8 )
7. Does the authority of Parliament to validate the proceedings of a former state's assembly expire when that state ceases to exist?
No. The authority of Parliament to validate the proceedings of a body that purported to function as a Legislative Assembly is not extinguished even if the state has ceased to exist or merged into another state. (Para 9 )
8. Are agrarian reform laws that transfer land interests from owners to tenants protected from challenges based on fundamental rights?
Yes. Under Article 31A, laws providing for the acquisition of estates or modification of rights for agrarian reform are protected from challenges under Articles 14, 19, and 31, provided the law has received Presidential assent. (Para 10 )
Judgement
SHAH, J. : In the First Schedule to the Constitution, as originally enacted under the heading "Part C States" were set out the names of ten "C" States. The Parliament of India enacted The Government of Part C States Act 49 of 1951 providing for the constitution of Legislative Assemblies, Councils of Ministers and Councils of Advisers for Part C States. Under S.4 of the Act, the President was authorised to delimit by order the constituencies into which each Part C State was to be divided & the areas of the constituencies, the number of seats allocated to each such constituency and the number of seats reserved for scheduled castes and tribes. In exercise of the powers conferred by S.4 of the Act, the President made an order determining the constituencies into which the State of Himachal Pradesh was to be divided. In 1952, elections were held to the Himachal Pradesh Assembly and 36 members were elected in the different constituencies. In the Legislative Assembly of the State, Bill No. 7 of 1953 was introduced by the Government for the abolition of certain intermediaries in respect of landed estates. Before that Bill was passed into an Act, on May 8, 1954, the Parliament of India enacted the Himachal Pradesh and Bilaspur (New State) Act No. 32 of 1954. This Act which constituted a new State by uniting the States of Himachal Pradesh and Bilaspur received the assent of the President on May 28, 1954, and was brought into force under a notification dated 1-7-1954. Under S. 12 of Act 32 of 1954, a Legislative Assembly for the new State of Himachal Pradesh was to be constituted with 41 seats to be filled by direct elections. No fresh elections to the new State. Assembly were held, but on July 7, 1954, a notification was issued by the Lieutenant-Governor of the new Himachal Pradesh State purporting to exercise the powers conferred by S. 9 of the Government of Part C States Act, 1951 convening the second session of 1954 of the Himachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly. Pursuant to this notification, the Legislature assembled and Bill No. 7 of 1953 which was introduced in the old Himachal C State Assembly was passed into an Act. This Act called the HIMACHAL PRADESH ABOLITION OF BIG LANDED ESTATES AND LAND REFORMS ACT , 1954 - hereinafter called the Abolition Act - received the assent of the President on 23-11-1954, and was brought into force under a notification issued by the State Government on 26-1-1955.
2. This Court, in petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution challenging the constitutional validity of the Abolition Act, held that the said Act could not be recognised as a piece of legislation validly enacted. It was held that even though S.15(1) of the New State Act provided that each of the 36 sitting members representing a constituency of the old Legislative Assembly of Himachal Pradesh was to be deemed. To have been elected by that constituency, and by "the deeming provision", these members were placed in the same position in which they would have been placed had they gone through the entire process of election and been elected, as no notification had been issued under S. 74 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, the 36 members of the old Himachal Pradesh Assembly could not constitute the Legislative Assembly. It was further held that by the notification issued by the Lieutenant-Governor, the 2nd session of the old Legislative Assembly was summoned, and not the new Legislative Assembly; and in the session held pursuant to the command of the Lieutenant Governor, Bill No. 7 of 1953 pending before the Assembly of the old State which had lapsed when that Assembly was dissolved could not be enacted as an Act of the Legislative Assembly of the new State.
3. After this decision was pronounced on 11-10-1958, the President issued Ordinance No. 7 of 1958 validating the constitution and proceedings of the Legislative Assembly of the new State of Himachal Pradesh formed under Act 32 of 1954, and prohibiting the Courts from questi
