1. Dispute concerning the application of statutory rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution and the effect of a government intention to amend them. (Para 3 )
Back
Next 
1996 Supreme(SC) 270
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M. Ahmadi, C.J.I., K. Venkataswami, M. K. Mukherjee, JJ.
K. KUPPUSAMY AND ANOTHER, APPELLANTS
Versus
STATE OF T.N. AND OTHERS, RESPONDENTS.
Civil Appeal Nos. ... of 1996 (Arising out of SLPs (C) Nos. 5891-92 of 1992),
decided on February 5, 1996.
Statutory rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution cannot be overridden by executive orders or practice. Such rules remain in force until formally amended, and the mere intention to amend them does not justify acting in contradiction to the existing rules.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 309 - Statutory rules - Executive orders - Validity of action based on proposed amendment - Statutory rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 are statutory in nature and cannot be overridden by executive orders or executive practice - Mere decision by the Government to amend the rules does not mean the rule stood obliterated - Until the rule is formally amended, the rule applies - Amendments are ordinarily prospective in nature unless expressly or by necessary implication found to be retrospective. (Para 3)
Facts of the case:
The Tribunal upheld consequential orders passed by the Government on the assumption that relevant statutory rules were to be amended, as the Government had indicated its intention to do so. The appellants challenged this approach, contending that the existing statutory rules must be adhered to until the amendment is actually effected.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal erred in taking the view that since the Government had indicated its intention to amend the relevant rules, its action in proceeding on the assumption of such amendment could not be said to be irrational or arbitrary. The court found that the Tribunal was wrong in ignoring the existing rule.
Issues: Whether the Government can act on the assumption of a proposed amendment to statutory rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution, thereby overriding the existing rules.
Ratio Decidendi: Statutory rules cannot be overridden by executive orders or practice. A rule remains in force until it is formally amended, and the mere intention to amend does not remove the existing rule from operation.
Result: Appeals allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
constitutional law
-
administrative law
-
statutory rules
- article 309 (Para 3)
-
statutory rules
-
administrative law
Table of Contents
2. Whether the government's intention to amend statutory rules justifies proceeding on the assumption of such amendment, rendering the action non-arbitrary. (Para 3 )
3. Statutory rules cannot be overridden by executive orders or practice, and a decision to amend does not obliterate the rule until the amendment is effected. (Para 3 )
4. Statutory rules remain in force until formally amended and cannot be superseded by executive orders or the mere intention to amend. (Para 3 )
5. Tribunal order set aside and matter remitted for disposal in accordance with law; appeals allowed. (Para 4 )
6. Can executive orders or practice override statutory rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution?
No, statutory rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution are statutory in nature and cannot be overridden by executive orders or executive practice. (Para 3 )
7. Does a government decision to amend a statutory rule render the existing rule inapplicable?
No, a decision to amend the rules does not mean the rule is obliterated; the existing rule continues to apply until the amendment is actually effected. (Para 3 )
8. What is the general nature of amendments to statutory rules regarding their timing of application?
Amendments to statutory rules are ordinarily prospective in nature unless they are expressly or by necessary implication found to be retrospective. (Para 3 )
ORDER
1. Special leave granted.
2. Heard counsel on both sides.
3. The short point on which these appeals must succeed is that the Tribunal fell into an error in taking the view that since the Government had indicated its intention to amend the relevant rules, its action in proceeding on the assumption of such amendment could not be said to be irrational or arbitrary and, therefore, the consequential orders passed have to be upheld. We are afraid this line of approach cannot be countenanced. The relevant rules, it is admitted, were framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. They are statutory rules. Statutory rules cannot be overridden by executive orders or executive practice. Merely because the Government had taken a decision to amend the rules does not mean that the rule stood obliterated. Till the rule is amended, the rule applies. Even today the amendment has not been effected. As and when it is effected ordinarily it would be prospective in nature unless expressly or by necessary implication found to be retrospective. The Tribunal was, therefore, wrong in ignoring the rule.
4. For the above reason, we set aside the order of the Tribunal and remit the matter to the Tribunal for disposal in accordance with law and in the light of what we have said above. The appeals will stand allowed accordingly with no order as to costs.
