( 51 ) THIRDLY the decision in Sham Rao's case was further explained and distinguished in Devi Das v. State of Punjab (1967) 3 SCR 557 by the same Constitution Bench, this time unanimously. Law grows from precedent to precedent. Just as a later statute impliedly repeals an earlier one to the extent of the repugnancy between the two, a later precedent modifies an earlier one by developing the law. In Sham Rao's case, the contention of Shri S. T. Desai for the petitioner at page 661-G was that the Principal Act being void, the Amendment Act could not resuscitate it. This was a noval contention not supported by any previous authority. The learned counsel relied on the decisions in Deep Chand and Mahendra Lal Jaini cases. But none of them had decided that a void Act could not be revived by an amendment of the said Act itself. Secondly, learned counsel's argument was self-contradictory inasmuch as he had bracketed the decision in Deep Chand's case with the decision in Mahendra Lal Jaini's case. Actually, as shown above, the decision in Mahendra Lal Jaini's case was contrary to the decision in Deep Chand's case in holding that there was no distinction between Articles 13 (1) and 13 (2) a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document