Back
Supreme Court Of India
Dharam Dutt
Versus
Union of India
Decided on NOVEMBER 24, 2003
Indian Council of World Affairs Act, 2001 - Constitutional validity - Challenge - Grounds - Mala fides - Legislative competence of Parliament - Violation of Article 19(1)(a) and (c) - Violation of Article 300A - Maintainability of writ petition challenging Ordinance - Applicability of the doctrine of Colourable legislation - Gist of the impugned Act - Applicability of Entries 62 and 63 of List I of the Seventh Schedule - Scope and purport of Article 19(1) - Tests of reasonableness and authorized restrictions - Right to form associations or unions - Scope and ambit - Distinction between a right to form an association and the right of such association to carry on business activity - Applicability of Article 19(1)(c) to societies registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 - Permissible restrictions on the exercise of fundamental rights - Distinction between fundamental rights and statutory rights - Interpretation of Article 19 - Scheme of Article 19 - Reasonable restrictions - L. N. Mishra Institute of Economic Development and Social Change, Patna v. State of Bihar & Ors. (1988) 2 SCC 433, relied on - S. P. Mittal v. Union of India & Ors. (1983) 1 SCC 51, referred to - Smt. Damyanti Naranga & Anr. v. The Union of India & Ors. & Anr. (1971) 3 SCR 840, distinguished - Asom Rashtrabhasha Prachar Samiti, Hedayatpur-Gauhati-3 & Anr. v. State of Assam & Ors. (1989) Supp. SCR 160, distinguished.
Fact of the Case:
The Indian Council of World Affairs (ICWA) was formed in 1943 as a non-official, non-political, and non-profit organization. In 1990, an Ordinance was promulgated by the President of India, constituting a statutory body known as the ICWA. The constitutional validity of this Ordinance was challenged in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, which allowed the writ petition and held the Ordinance to be ultra vires the Constitution of India. In 2000, another Ordinance was promulgated, which was replaced by an Act of Parliament, the Indian Council of World Affairs Act, 2001. Two writ petitions were filed challenging the constitutional validity of the Ordinance and the Act, respectively. The main grounds of challenge were that the impugned Ordinance and Act violated Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(c), and 300A of the Constitution.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the impugned Act did not offend the right guaranteed by Article 19(1)(c) or the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a). The Court also held that the Act did not violate Article 300A. The Court further held that the writ petition challenging the Ordinance was infructuous as the Ordinance had been replaced by an Act of Parliament. The Court also held that the doctrine of Colourable legislation was not applicable in the present case as the Parliament had the requisite competence to enact the impugned Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the impugned Ordinance and Act were violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(c), and 300A of the Constitution? 2. Whether the writ petition challenging the Ordinance was maintainable? 3. Whether the doctrine of Colourable legislation was applicable in the present case? 4. Whether the Parliament had the requisite competence to enact the impugned Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the impugned Act did not offend the right guaranteed by Article 19(1)(c) or the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) as the Act only took over the ICWA, an institution of national importance, and did not interfere with the society's right to form an association. 2. The Court held that the writ petition challenging the Ordinance was infructuous as the Ordinance had been replaced by an Act of Parliament. 3. The Court held that the doctrine of Colourable legislation was not applicable in the present case as the Parliament had the requisite competence to enact the impugned Act. 4. The Court held that the Parliament had the requisite competence to enact the impugned Act as the ICWA was an institution of national importance and the Act fell within the purview of Entries 62 and 63 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed both the writ petitions, holding that the impugned Ordinance and Act were constitutionally valid.
Judgment
R. C. Lahoti, J.
( 1 ) W. P. (C) No. 276/2001 filed on June 22, 2002, lays challenge to the constitutional validity of the Indian council of World Affairs Ordinance, 2001 (No. 3 of 2001), promulgated by the President of India on 8/05/2001, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (1) of Article 123 of the constitution of India. During the pendency of this petition the ordinance came to be replaced by an Act of Parliament, namely, the indian Council of World Affairs Act, 2001 (Act No. 29 of 2001), which came into force w. e. f. 1/09/2000. On 19. 10. 2001 W. P. (C) No. 543/2001 was filled laying challenge to the constitutional validity of this Act. Both the petitions have been filed under article 32 of the Constitutional of India and respectively allege the ordinance and the Act to be violative of Articles 14, 19 (1) (a), 19 (1) (c) and 300a of the Constitution. Factual backdrop:
( 2 ) IN the year 1943, the Indian Council of World Affairs was formed by about 50 distinguished eminent public personalities as a non-official, non-political and non-profit organization. On 31/03/1945, the Association was registered as a society under the societies Registration Act, 1860. The principal object of the society, as set out in the Memorandum of Association, was to promote the study of Indian and international questions so as to develop a body of informed opinion on world affairs and Indian relation thereto through study, research, discussion, lectures, exchange of ideas and information etc. , with other bodies in India and abroad engaged in similar activities. The activities of the society were housed in a building known as Sapru House. Sapru house has come up on a land of about 2 acres situated at No. 1, barakhamba Road, New Delhi, given on lease by the Government of india some time in the year 1950-51. Sapru House has a library with a collection of books mainly on international affairs, an auditorium for holding seminars and discussions, a conference room and other office accommodation. The society was receiving grants from the Government of India from 1974 until the year 1987, whereafter the grant has been discontinued.
( 3 ) ON 30/06/1990, the President of India promulgated an Ordinance whereby a statutory body known as the Indian Council of world Affairs was constituted, having perpetual succession and a common seal, with power to hold and dispose of property both movable and immovable. The constitutional validity of this ordinance was put in issue by filing a writ petition before the high Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, registered as civil Writ Petition No. 9120 of 1990. A learned single Judge of the High Court vide judgment dated 10/09/1990, allowed the writ petition, holding the Ordinance to be ultra vires of the constitution of India, violating Articles 14, 19 (1) (a) and 19 (1) (c) thereof and also beyond the legislative competence of the parliament. The Union of India filed a letters patent appeal against this judgment of the learned single Judge. The letters patent appeal came up for hearing before a Division Bench of the high Court on 22/10/1990. It was brought to the notice of the Division Bench that the Ordinance promulgated on 30/06/1990 had lapsed on 19/09/1990, as the Bill seeking to replace the Ordinance by an Act of Parliament could not be passed. The division Bench formed an opinion that the letters patent appeal had become infructuous and directed the same to be dismissed without any adjudication on merits.
( 4 ) IN December 1999, the Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India, cancelled the perpetual lease of the land of the Indian council of World Affairs. The cancellation of lease was followed by an order of re-entry. A writ petition was filed in the Delhi high Court, laying challenge to the said action of the Central government. The learned single Judge before whom the writ petition came up for hearing refused to grant any interim relief to the writ petitioner, and so a Letters Patent
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
