The Legislature has the power to retrospectively amend a law or to create a legal fiction to validate past transactions, and this does not constitute an exercise of judicial function.

Headnote:
ELECTION LAW - VALIDATION OF ELECTORAL ROLLS AND ELECTIONS - ACT I OF 1955 (M.P.) - INTERPRETATION AND CONSTRUCTION - LEGISLATIVE COMPETENCE - JUDICIAL FUNCTION - SEPARATION OF POWERS - ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION - DEFINITION OF "COURT" AND "ORDER" - ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION - DISCRIMINATION.
Fact of the Case:

Three election petitions were filed by defeated candidates in an election to the Janapad Sabha, challenging the validity of the electoral rolls and the elections held pursuant to those rolls. The Nagpur High Court had previously held that the electoral rolls were not properly prepared and the elections void. In response, the Madhya Pradesh Legislature passed Act I of 1955, which declared that the electoral rolls were valid and the elections valid, notwithstanding the decision of the Nagpur High Court.
Finding of the Court:

The Court upheld the validity of Act I of 1955 and dismissed the election petitions. It held that the Legislature had not exceeded its legislative competence in passing the Act, as it was not dictating to the Court how to interpret the law but rather creating a legal fiction to validate the electoral rolls and elections. The Court also held that the Act did not take away the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, as it did not prevent anyone from approaching the High Court or the High Court from passing orders under Article 226. Finally, the Court held that the Act did not offend Article 14 of the Constitution, as there was no evidence that elections had been held after the cut-off date specified in the Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the Legislature exceeded its legislative competence in passing Act I of 1955, which declared the electoral rolls and elections valid notwithstanding the decision of the Nagpur High Court. 2. Whether the Act took away the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 3. Whether the Act offended Article 14 of the Constitution by discriminating between elections held during a certain period and elections held after that period.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Legislature has the power to retrospectively amend a law or to create a legal fiction to validate past transactions, and this does not constitute an exercise of judicial function. 2. The definition of "Court" and "Order" in Act I of 1955 did not prevent anyone from approaching the High Court under Article 226 or the High Court from passing orders under Article 226. 3. There was no evidence that elections had been held after the cut-off date specified in the Act, and therefore the Court could not consider the argument that the Act discriminated between elections held during a certain period and elections held after that period.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed all three election petitions and upheld the judgment of the District Court, which had upheld the election.

Judgment - 1. This Pull Bench has been necessitated by three election petitions filed by three defeated candidates in an election to the Janapad Sabha, and the question that arises for our determination is with regard to the interpretation and construction of Act I of 1955 passed by the Madhya Pradesh Legislature.

2. It appears that the Nagpur High. Court in a Full Bench decision in Kanglu Baula v. Chief Executive Officer, Janapad Sabha Durg ILR 1954 Nag 875: (.(S) AIR, 1955 Nag 49) (A) took the view that the electoral rolls prepared under the relevant Act under which elections to the Janapadsabha were held were not proper and the elections held pursuant to those rolls were void. In order to get over the effect of this decision an Ordinance was passed, being Ordinance 1 of 1954 and the Ordinance was substituted sub-sequently by Act I of 1955, the Act in question. It is a short Act and Section 3(1) provides:

"(1) Notwithstanding the Order of any Court to the contrary or any provision in the Act °r the rules thereunder-

(a) the electoral rolls shall be and shall always be deemed to have been validly prepared, published and republished; and

(b) the electoral rolls shall be deemed to have come in force on the date of republication and Khali continue to be in force until they are revised in accordance with the rules made in this behalf under the Act."

Sub-section (2) provides that the validity of the electoral rolls shall not be called in question on any of the grounds mentioned in that tub-section; and Sub-section (3) provides:

"Any Order of a Court declaring any electoral roll invalid on all or any of the grounds specified in Sub-section (2) or directing preparation of fresh electoral rolls shall be deemed to be and always to have been of no legal effect, whatsoever."

Section 4 deals with validation of elections and it provides:

"(1) No election shall be deemed to be or to have been invalid merely on the ground that the electoral roll on the basis of which the election was held was invalid on all or any of the grounds specified in Sub-section (2) of Section 3.

(2) Any Order of a Court declaring any election invalid merely on the ground that the electoral rolls were invalid on all or any of the grounds specified in Sub-section (2) of Section 3 shall be deemed to be and always to have been of no legal effect whatsoever."

Therefore, the substance of this legislation is to set aside the effect of the decision of the Nagpur High Court. The Nagpur High Court having held that the electoral rolls were not properly prepared the elections held pursuant to those rolls were void, the Legislature stepped in and declared by this Act that notwithstanding that decision and notwithstanding the provision of the Act the Nagpur High Court was construing, the electoral rolls were properly prepared and the elections pursuant to those rolls were valid.

3. This Act has been challenged by Mr. Badkas on three grounds and the first is a very interesting, and if we might say so, a very ingenious ground. The ground is that in passing this legislation the Legislature has not been exercising its legislative function but has been trespassing upon the function reserved under the Constitution for the judiciary. In other words, what Mr. Badkas says is that the legislature has been performing a judicial function, a function which it is not competent to perform. What Mr. Badkas submits is that it is open to a Legislature retrospectively to amend a law, but it is not open to a Legislature to tell the Courts how it shall Interpret a particular law, and according to Mr. Badkas the real, effect of this Act is that although the Nagpur High Court interpreted the Act in a particular manner and came to the conclusion that the electoral rolls were not validly prepared, the Legislature by its mandate orders the Court to interpret the Act in a different way and hold that the electoral rolls were validly prepared. In our opinion, that is really not the effect of this legislation which

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis