TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether the Manipur Legislature had competence to enact the Repealing Act, 2018; (ii) whether the saving clause in the Repealing Act, 2018 was valid; and (iii) whether the acts, deeds and decisions of the Parliamentary Secretaries appointed under the 2012 Act were liable to be saved.
Issue (i): whether the Manipur Legislature had competence to enact the Repealing Act, 2018.
Analysis: The 2012 Act had not been declared unconstitutional by any court when the Repealing Act, 2018 was enacted. A legislature may repeal a law that is still on the statute book, and the repeal of a statute is distinct from judicial nullification of an unconstitutional enactment. The fact that the 2012 Act had been found unconstitutional in relation to the Assam legislation did not deprive the Manipur Legislature of power to repeal its own enactment.
Conclusion: The Manipur Legislature was competent to enact the Repealing Act, 2018.
Issue (ii): whether the saving clause in the Repealing Act, 2018 was valid.
Analysis: A saving clause cannot be used to give continued life to a law which the Legislature itself treated as constitutionally unsustainable and sought to repeal. In the peculiar facts, the saving clause attempted to preserve rights and obligations under a statute that had been recognised as a nullity and was being brought to a logical close. Such a clause could not validly operate to revive or sustain the repealed framework.
Conclusion: The saving clause in the Repealing Act, 2018 was invalid and was struck down.
Issue (iii): whether the acts, deeds and decisions of the Parliamentary Secretaries appointed under the 2012 Act were liable to be saved.
Analysis: Nullification of all acts done in the public sphere by the Parliamentary Secretaries would cause serious disruption and uncertainty. To prevent injustice and administrative chaos, the Court invoked its constitutional power to preserve those acts, deeds and decisions duly undertaken during their tenure.
Conclusion: The acts, deeds and decisions duly undertaken by the Parliamentary Secretaries under the 2012 Act till discontinuation of their appointments were saved.
Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded to the extent that the repeal enacted by the Manipur Legislature was upheld, but the saving clause was set aside, while past official acts of the Parliamentary Secretaries were protected.
Ratio Decidendi: A legislature may repeal an existing law even if its constitutional validity has been questioned, but it cannot use a saving clause to continue the operation of a statute treated as a nullity in the peculiar circumstances of the case; nevertheless, the Court may preserve completed public acts to avoid administrative chaos.
TaxTMI 
