Promulgation and publication are required before a law can bind subjects; secret enactment could not support conviction.

A law passed by the Jaipur Council of Ministers did not become operative because it was never promulgated or published in the Gazette or by any recognised means. In the absence of any special rule, custom, or authority permitting secret enactment, the Court held that a law must be made known before it can bind subjects, and a mere resolution could not bring it into force. An amendment fixing an earlier commencement date could not validate a measure that had never validly come into existence. Section 3(b) of the Jaipur Laws Act, 1923, protected only valid regulations already in force and did not cure the defect. The conviction under the Jaipur Opium Act therefore could not stand.

---

---

Issues: Whether a law passed by a Council of Ministers in Jaipur became operative without promulgation or publication, and whether the appellant's conviction under the Jaipur Opium Act could stand.

Analysis: The enactment was passed by resolution but was never promulgated or published in the Gazette or by any other recognised means. In the absence of any special law, rule, regulation, or custom authorising such a method, the Court held that natural justice requires a law to be made known before it can bind subjects and that mere secret resolution cannot bring a law into force. The later amendment inserting an earlier commencement date could not validate an enactment that had never validly come into existence. Section 3(b) of the Jaipur Laws Act, 1923, saved only valid regulations already in force and did not cure a resolution that had not acquired the force of law.

Conclusion: The Jaipur Opium Act was not validly operative against the appellant, and the conviction and sentence could not be sustained.

---