SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

JUDGMENT

Per Venkatachaliah, K. Jayachandra Reddy and Agrawal, JJ

(1) THE writ petitions, transfer petitions, civil appeals, special leave c petitions and other connected matters raising common questions as to the constitutional validity of the Constitution (Fifty-second Amendment) Act, 1985, insofar as it seeks to introduce the Tenth Schedule in the Constitution of India, were heard together. Some of these matters involve investigation and determination of factual controversies and of d the extent of applicability to them of the conclusions reached on the various constitutional issues. That exercise shall have to be undertaken in _the individual cases separately.

(2) THE present judgment is pronounced in the Transfer Petition No. 40 of 1991 seeking the transfer of the writ petition, Rule No. 2421 of^ 1990 on the file of the High court of guwahati to this court.

(3) THE transfer petition is allowed and the aforesaid writ petition is withdrawn to this court for the purpose of deciding the constitutional issues and of declaring the law on the matter

(4) FOR the reasons to be set out in the detailed judgment to follow, the following are the operative conclusions in the majority opinion on the various constitutional issues:

A That having regard to the background and evolution of the principles underlying the Constitution (Fifty-second Amendment) Act, 1985, insofar as it seeks to introduce the Tenth Schedule in the Constitution of India, the provisions of paragraph 7 of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution in terms and in effect bring about a change in the operation and effect of Articles 136, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India-and therefore, the amendment would require to be ratified in accordance with the proviso to sub-article (2 of Article 368 of the Constitution of India.

{B} That there is nothing in the said proviso to Article 368(2 which detracts from the severability of a provision on account of the inclusion of which the Bill containing the amendment requires ratification from the rest of the provisions of such Bill which do not attract and require such ratification. Having regard to the mandatory language of Article 368(2 that "thereupon the Constitution shall stand amended" the operation of the proviso should not be extended to constitutional amendments in a Bill which can stand by themselves without such ratification.

THAT, accordingly, the Constitution (Fifty-second Amendment) Act, 1985, insofar as it seeks to introduce the Tenth Schedule in the Constitution of India, to the extent of its provisions which are amenable to the legal sovereign of the amending process of the Union Parliament cannot be overborne by the proviso which cannot operate in that area. There is no justification for the view that even the rest of the provisions of the Constitution (Fifty-second Amendment) Act, 1985, excluding paragraph 7 of the Tenth Schedule become constitutionally infirm by reason alone of the fact that one of its severable provisions which attracted and required ratification under the proviso to Article 368(2 was not so ratified.

THAT paragraph 7 of the Tenth Schedule contains a provision which is independent of, and stands apart from, the main provisions of the Tenth Schedule which are intended to provide a remedy for the evil of unprincipled and unethical political defections and, therefore, is a severable part. The remaining provisions of the Tenth Schedule can and do stand independently of paragraph 7 and are complete in themselves, workable and are not truncated by the excision of paragraph 7.

THAT the paragraph 2 of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution is valid. Its provisions do not suffer from the vice of subverting democratic rights of elected Members of Parliament and the legislatures of the States. It does not violate their freedom of speech, freedom of vote and conscience as contended. The provisions of paragraph 2 do not violate