Temporary statute extension and retrospective notification power were invalid, leaving the detention orders unsustainable.

The proviso to Section 1(3) of the Bihar Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1947, was treated as an impermissible delegation because it allowed extension of a temporary statute with modifications, including control over whether the Act would continue and in what form; it was therefore ultra vires. A notification under Section 92(1) of the Government of India Act, 1935, was held necessary to bring the extended Act into force in the partially excluded area, and the section did not authorise retrospective operation after the Act had lapsed there, so the detention was unauthorised. Bihar Act V of 1949 was held not to revive or validate the expired Act in the absence of clear words, and the detention orders were not saved.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the proviso to Section 1(3) of the Bihar Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1947, authorising extension of the Act for a further period with modifications, was valid; (ii) whether a notification under Section 92(1) of the Government of India Act, 1935, was required to continue the Act in the partially excluded area after the extension, and whether such notification could operate retrospectively; (iii) whether the Bihar Act V of 1949 revived or validated the expired Act so as to sustain the detention orders.

Issue (i): Whether the proviso to Section 1(3) of the Bihar Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1947, authorising extension of the Act for a further period with modifications, was valid.

Analysis: The principal reasoning treated the power to extend the life of a temporary statute, coupled with an unrestricted power to make modifications, as legislative in character. The proviso was held to go beyond conditional legislation because it did not merely leave the time or manner of bringing the statute into operation to an external authority, but enabled that authority to determine whether the Act would continue and in what form. On that view, the proviso amounted to an impermissible delegation of essential legislative power.

Conclusion: The proviso was held to be ultra vires, and the detention could not be supported on that basis.

Issue (ii): Whether a notification under Section 92(1) of the Government of India Act, 1935, was required to continue the Act in the partially excluded area after the extension, and whether such notification could operate retrospectively.

Analysis: The governing principle applied was that the Governor's power under Section 92(1) was limited to applying an existing provincial Act to an excluded or partially excluded area, with or without exceptions or modifications, and did not extend to creating a retrospective operation where the Act had already lapsed in that area. Since the Act had expired in the excluded area before the later notification, a fresh notification was necessary to bring the extended Act into force there. A retrospective notification was not treated as within the competence conferred by the section.

Conclusion: The detention was held unauthorised because the extended Act was not validly in force in the area and the retrospective notification could not cure the defect.

Issue (iii): Whether the Bihar Act V of 1949 revived or validated the expired Act so as to sustain the detention orders.

Analysis: The amending Act was treated as a mere amendment to an existing and operative statute, not as a revival of a statute that had already ceased to exist in the relevant area. An amending enactment cannot, without clear words of revival or re-enactment, breathe life into a dead temporary statute. Accordingly, the later amendment did not validate detentions made when the Act was not in force.

Conclusion: The 1949 amending Act did not save the detention orders.

Final Conclusion: By the majority, the appeals succeeded and the detention orders were set aside, with directions that the appellants be released forthwith; one judge dissented and would have upheld the detentions.

Ratio Decidendi: A temporary statute cannot be continued or revived by an impermissible delegation of essential legislative power, and a notification under Section 92(1) cannot retrospectively apply an Act that has already lapsed in the excluded area.

---