ITEM NO.1B COURT NO.1 SECTION XVI (For Judgment)

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No(s). 5875/1994 KRISHNA KUMAR SINGH & ANR Appellant(s)

VERSUS STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. Respondent(s)

WITH C.A. No. 5876-5890/1994 W.P.(C) No.580/1995 C.A. No.3533-3595/1995 Date : 02/01/2017 These appeals were called on for pronouncement of judgment today.

For Appellant(s)

Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Adv.

Mr. Irshad Ahmad, Adv.

For Respondent(s)

Mr. Ranjit Kumar, SG Mr. AMS Nadkarni, ASG Mr. Ritesh Kumar, Adv.

Mr. Salvadar S. Rebello, Adv.

Mr. Amogh V. Prabhudesai, Adv.

Mr. V. Giri, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Devashish Bharuka, Adv.

Ms. Anu Tyagi, Adv.

Ms. Jennifer Rohita, Adv.

Ms. Jaya Bharuka, Adv.

Ms. Arpita Bishnoi, Adv.

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Ms. S. Shankar, Adv.

ASHOK RAJ SINGH Date: 2017.01.02

19:04:56 IST Mr. Manav Vohra, Adv.

Reason:

Mr. Gopal Singh, Adv.

Mr. Manish Kumar, Adv.

Ms. Vimla Sinha, Adv.

Mr. Rituraj Biswas, Adv.

Mr. Chandan Kumar, Adv.

Mr. Shivam Singh, Adv. Mr. Aditya Raina, Adv. Mr. Shreyas Jain, Adv.

Mr. Advitiya Awasthi, Adv.

Ms. Varsha Poddar, Adv.

Mr. Milind Kumar, Adv.

Mr. Sagar Chakravarty, Adv.

Mr. Niraj Gupta, Adv.

Mr. Lakshmi Raman Singh, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Madan B. Lokur pronounced their separate individual judgments.

Hon'ble Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud pronounced the separate judgment comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.A.Bobde, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit His Lordship and Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao.

In the light of the answer to the reference, all the appeals and writ petition are disposed off in terms of the signed reportable judgments.

(Ashok Raj Singh) (Suman Jain)

Court Master Court Master (Signed reportable judgment is placed in the file)

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5875 OF 1994 KRISHNA KUMAR SINGH & ANR. .....APPELLANTS VERSUS STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. ....RESPONDENTS WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5876-5890 OF 1994 WITH WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 580 OF 1995 AND CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3533-3595 OF 1995

J U D G M E N T

Madan B. Lokur, J.

1. Having carefully read the erudite judgment prepared by brother Chandrachud, I regret my inability to agree that laying an Ordinance promulgated by the Governor of a State before the State Legislature is mandatory under Article 213(2) of the Constitution and the failure to lay an Ordinance before the State Legislature results in the Ordinance not having the force and effect as a law enacted and would be of no consequence whatsoever. In my opinion, it is not mandatory under Article 213(2) of the Constitution to lay an Ordinance before the Legislative Assembly of the State Legislature, nor would the failure to do so result in the Ordinance not having the force and effect as an enacted law or being of no consequence whatsoever.

2. Further, in my opinion, an Ordinance cannot create an enduring or irreversible right in a citizen. Consequently and with respect, a contrary view expressed by this Court in State of Orissa v. Bhupendra Kumar Bose¹ and T. Venkata Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, [2(1985) 3 SCC 198 – Bench of 5 Judges] requires to be overruled. In overruling these decisions, I agree with brother Chandrachud though my reasons are different.

3. As far as the re-promulgation of an Ordinance is concerned, I am of opinion that the re-promulgation of an Ordinance by the Governor of a State is not per se a fraud on the Constitution. There could be exigencies requiring the re-promulgation of an Ordinance. However, re-promulgation of an Ordinance ought not to be a mechanical exercise and a responsibility rests on the Governor to be satisfied that “circumstances exist which render it necessary for him to take immediate action” for promulgating or re-promulgating an Ordinance.

4. Finally, I am of the view that in the absence of any challenge by the employees to the first three Ordinances promu