High Court upholds Constitution Amendment Act '82, emphasizing legislative competence, no re-examination post-Supreme Court ruling. State laws valid.

The High Court upheld the validity of the Constitution (Forty-sixth Amendment) Act, 1982, dismissing challenges based on legislative competence and constitutional violation. The Court emphasized that once the Supreme Court rules on an amendment's constitutionality, it cannot be re-examined. It clarified that State Legislatures can enact laws even without specific Parliamentary legislation, citing the Gujarat Act as an example. The Court rejected concerns of potential chaos from lack of specific laws, stating Parliament could address issues if necessary. The petitions were dismissed, affirming the importance of legislative competence and adherence to constitutional provisions.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to the validity of the Constitution (Forty-sixth Amendment) Act, 1982 on grounds of legislative competence and violation of constitutional articles.

Analysis:
The petitioners challenged the validity of the Constitution (Forty-sixth Amendment) Act, 1982, on the basis of legislative competence and violation of constitutional articles. However, the High Court noted that the Supreme Court had already upheld the constitutionality of the said amendment in a previous case. The High Court emphasized that once the Supreme Court has ruled on the constitutionality of an amendment, it is not within the jurisdiction of the High Court to re-examine the same. The High Court presumed that the Supreme Court had considered all relevant aspects before upholding the amendment, thus dismissing the petitioners' contention on this ground.

The petitioners argued that certain amendments to articles 269(3) and 286 had not been appropriately legislated by the Parliament, leading to a lack of specified restrictions and conditions for State laws regarding transactions like works contracts and hire-purchase agreements. The High Court clarified that the absence of specific laws enacted by the Parliament does not restrict the State Legislature from enacting laws in these areas. The State Legislature retains its power to legislate on transactions covered by the relevant articles, even in the absence of specific Parliamentary laws. The High Court highlighted that the State Legislature is cognizant of its limitations, as demonstrated by the provisions of the Gujarat Act. The Act expressly states restrictions on imposing taxes on certain transactions, thereby ensuring compliance with relevant laws.

The High Court further rejected the argument that the absence of specific Parliamentary laws would lead to a chaotic situation with different States imposing taxes on the same transactions. The Court emphasized that if necessary, the Parliament could enact suitable legislation to address any potential issues. The High Court underscored that invalidating a validly passed Act based on hypothetical chaos would be counterproductive. Ultimately, the High Court dismissed the petitions, upholding the validity of the Constitution (Forty-sixth Amendment) Act, 1982, and emphasizing the importance of legislative competence and adherence to constitutional provisions.

No other contentions were raised in the case, leading to the dismissal of the petitions based on the aforementioned reasons. The High Court discharged the rule and dismissed the petitions, thereby upholding the validity of the Constitution (Forty-sixth Amendment) Act, 1982.

---