Void statutes remain amendable, and a legislative amendment may cure constitutional discrimination without full re-enactment.

A law declared void under Article 13(2) is unenforceable, but it is not erased from the statute book and remains available for legislative amendment or repeal. The Delhi High Court also noted that the discriminatory vice in the Public Premises Act was cured by the 1968 Amendment Act, which inserted a bar on civil court jurisdiction and removed the basis of unequal treatment. Re-enactment of the entire statute was not required where the Legislature had competence to amend the existing law and the amendment effectively removed the constitutional defect. The amended scheme was therefore treated as valid.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a statute held void under Article 13(2) of the Constitution of India ceases to exist on the statute book so as to be incapable of amendment. (ii) Whether the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Amendment Act, 1968 validly cured the discriminatory vice in the principal Act without re-enactment.

Issue (i): Whether a statute held void under Article 13(2) of the Constitution of India ceases to exist on the statute book so as to be incapable of amendment.

Analysis: A law declared void under Article 13(2) is unenforceable by courts and cannot be acted upon in deciding rights, but the legislative act itself is not physically erased by a judicial pronouncement. The distinction drawn was between repeal by legislation and a declaration of unconstitutionality by courts. Since Article 13 does not itself repeal the statute, the enactment remains available for legislative notice and further legislation, including repeal or amendment. The judgment treated the expression "void" as signifying absence of legal force or binding effect, not annihilation of the enactment from the statute book.

Conclusion: A statute void under Article 13(2) does not cease to exist for legislative purposes and is capable of being amended.

Issue (ii): Whether the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Amendment Act, 1968 validly cured the discriminatory vice in the principal Act without re-enactment.

Analysis: The discriminatory vice in the principal Act arose from the availability of an alternative civil remedy alongside the summary procedure. Section 10E of the 1958 Act, inserted by the Amendment Act of 1968, barred civil court jurisdiction in respect of eviction and recovery of rent or damages, thereby removing the basis of discrimination. The judgment held that the Legislature had competence to amend the existing statute, that an amendment could cure the vice of unconstitutionality, and that re-enactment of the entire Act was not mandatory. The amended Act was therefore construed as a valid remedial measure that made the statute constitutional.

Conclusion: The Amendment Act of 1968 validly cured the defect and the proceedings under the amended Act were lawful.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions failed because the amended statutory scheme was held constitutionally valid, and the eviction proceedings under the amended Act were sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A law declared void for constitutional inconsistency remains available on the statute book for legislative correction, and the Legislature may cure the defect by amendment if the amending law is within competence and removes the constitutional vice.

---