Judgement

VENKATARAMIAH, J. :- Shri Baburao alias P. B. Samant, the petitioner herein, who has argued this case in person with great clarity and precision has raised the following contentions in this petition :

(1) The Proclamation of Emergency issued on 3-12-1971 by the President of India was either ultra vires the Constitution or had ceased to be in operation on 4-2-1972;

(2) The Proclamation of Emergency dt. 25-6-1975 issued by the President of India on 26-6-1975 was either ultra vires the Constitution or had ceased to be in operation on 26-8-1975;

(3) The House of the People (Extension of Duration) Act, 1976 (No. 30 of 1976) is ultra vires the Constitution; and

(4) The Finance Act, 1976 (66 of 1976) is ultra vires the Constitution.

2. Although the petitioner had also challenged S. 13 of the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976 and Cl. (c) of S. 3 of the Constitution (24th Amendment) Act, 1971 in the petition he did not press these two contentions at the hearing of the petition.

3. The petitioner was an assessee under the Income-tax Act and Wealth-tax Act during the assessment year 1976-77 and was liable to pay income-tax and wealth-tax in accordance with the rates prescribed by the Finance Act, 1976 which was passed by the Lok Sabha during its extended period which was extended under the provisions of the House of the People (Extension of Duration) Act, 1976 (Act 30 of 1976), after the expiry of five years from the date appointed for its first meeting. The contention of the petitioner is that the duration of the House of the People could have been validly extended only when a Proclamation of Emergency was in force under the proviso to Cl. (2) of Art. 83 of the Constitution and since the two Proclamations of Emergency dt. 3rd Dec., 1971 and 25th June, 1975 were either ultra vires the Constitution or had ceased to be in operation by the time the House of the People (Extension of Duration) Act, 1976 (Act 30 of 1976) was passed by Parliament, the House of the People (Extension of Duration) Act, 1976 (Act 30 of 1976) had no effect and consequently all Acts passed by the House of the People during the extended period including the Finance Act, 1976 were ultra vires the Constitution. He further submitted that even though the said Proclamations had been validly issued, the Proclamation of Emergency dt. 3rd December, 1971 had ceased to be in operation on 3rd Feb., 1972 and the Proclamation of Emergency dt. 25th June, 1975 which was issued on 26th June, 1975 had ceased to be in operation by 26th Aug., 1975 because the resolutions passed by the two Houses of Parliament approving the said Proclamations of Emergency as required by Cl. (2) of Art. 352 of the Constitution as it stood during the relevant time had not been published in the Official Gazette of the Government of India.

4. The petition is opposed by the Union of India. The Union of India has contended that the two Proclamations of Emergency had been duly issued by the President and approved by the resolutions of the two Houses of Parliament as required by law and that actually the Proclamation of Emergency of 3rd Dec., 1971 had been revoked by the Vice-President acting as the President by the Proclamation dt. 27th Mar., 1977 and the Proclamation of Emergency dt. June 25, 1975 had been revoked by him by the Proclamation dt. 21st Mar., 1977. In the month of Feb., 1976 when the House of the People (Extension of Duration) Act, 1976 (Act 30 of 1976) was passed by Parliament both the Proclamations of Emergency were in force and therefore Parliament was entitled to extend the period of. the House of the People for a period not exceeding one year at a time. The Finance Act, 1976 passed during the period so extended had been, therefore, validly passed. It was further pleaded by the Union of India that the publication of the resolutions was not necessary and that in any event since they had been published in the Lok Sabha Debates and the Rajya Sabha Debates which were published under the au