1977 (4) TMI 186 - HC - Indian Laws

Clarification on High Courts' Jurisdiction over Central and State Laws' Validity

Shantilal Ambalal Mehta Versus M.A. Rangaswamy

The judgment clarifies the impact of newly introduced constitutional provisions on High Courts' jurisdiction regarding central and state laws' validity. ... - Issues Involved:1. Impact of newly introduced provisions in Articles 131A, 226, 226A, and 228A of the Constitution of India.2. Validity and impact of interim orders made before the appointed day.3. Jurisdiction of the High Court to admit and entertain writ petitions challenging the constitutional validity of central laws.4. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 when other remedies are available.5. Applicability of new provisions in Article 226 to petitions for enforcement of fundamental rights.6. Interpretation of the term 'pending petition' in Section 58 of the Amending Act and its applicability to appeals.Detailed Analysis:1. Impact of Newly Introduced Provisions in Articles 131A, 226, 226A, and 228A:The judgment addresses the scope and impact of the newly introduced provisions in Articles 131A, 226, 226A, and 228A of the Constitution, read with Section 58 of the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976. The Court highlights that these provisions significantly alter the jurisdiction of the High Courts, particularly concerning the constitutional validity of central and state laws. Article 131A vests exclusive jurisdiction in the Supreme Court to determine the constitutional validity of central laws, while Article 226A bars High Courts from considering such validity in proceedings under Article 226. Article 228A deals with the jurisdiction of High Courts concerning the constitutional validity of state laws, requiring a minimum number of judges to decide such issues.2. Validity and Impact of Interim Orders Made Before the Appointed Day:The Court examines whether interim orders made before the appointed day, after hearing the parties or giving them an opportunity to be heard, remain unaffected. It concludes that such interim orders would remain unaffected if the parties had been given an opportunity to be heard, even if they did not avail themselves of it. The Court emphasizes that the urgency arising from the drastic provisions regarding abatement and vacating interim orders in Section 58 of the Amending Act necessitated a clear determination of this issue.3. Jurisdiction of the High Court to Admit and Entertain Writ Petitions Challenging the Constitutional Validity of Central Laws:The Court addresses whether Articles 131A and 226A, read with the amended Article 226, exclude the jurisdiction of the High Court to admit and entertain writ petitions challenging the constitutional validity of central laws. It concludes that the High Court retains the power to admit such petitions but must refer the questions of constitutional validity to the Supreme Court as mandated by Article 131A. The Court underscores that the High Court's jurisdiction is not entirely ousted but is subject to the procedural requirement of referring constitutional questions to the Supreme Court.4. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 When Other Remedies Are Available:The Court considers whether the High Court is deprived of its jurisdiction to entertain petitions under Article 226 when the petitioner has another remedy for redress of any injury. It determines that the jurisdiction is not entirely ousted but is restricted in cases where the other remedy is adequate, efficacious, convenient, and beneficial. The Court emphasizes that the adequacy and efficacy of the alternative remedy must be assessed on a case-by-case basis, considering factors such as the nature of the injury, the quality of the redress available, and the urgency for relief.5. Applicability of New Provisions in Article 226 to Petitions for Enforcement of Fundamental Rights:The Court examines whether the amended provisions of Articles 226(4), (5), and (6) apply to petitions for the enforcement of fundamental rights under Article 226(1)(a). It concludes that these provisions apply to all petitions under Article 226, including those for the enforcement of fundamental rights. The Court rejects the argument that the operation of these provisions should be restricted only to cases covered by Clauses (b) and (c) of Article 226(1). It emphasizes that the clear and unambiguous language of the provisions indicates the intention of the Parliament to apply them to all petitions under Article 226.6. Interpretation of the Term 'Pending Petition' in Section 58 of the Amending Act and Its Applicability to Appeals:The Court addresses whether the term 'pending petition' in Section 58 of the Amending Act includes an appeal pending in the High Court from an order finally deciding a petition under Article 226 before the appointed day. It concludes that Section 58 applies only to pending petitions and not to appeals. The Court emphasizes that the words 'a petition under Article 226' have always been understood to mean the original petition under Article 226 and not an appeal from an order in such a petition. It underscores that there is no indication in Section 58 that it was intended to affect vested rights in appeals pending from decisions on petitions under Article 226.Conclusion:The judgment provides a comprehensive analysis of the impact of the newly introduced constitutional provisions on the jurisdiction of the High Courts, particularly concerning the constitutional validity of central and state laws, the validity of interim orders, and the applicability of alternative remedies. It emphasizes the need for a harmonious construction of the provisions to ensure that the jurisdiction of the High Courts is not unduly restricted while giving effect to the clear intention of the Parliament. The judgment also clarifies the interpretation of the term 'pending petition' and its applicability to appeals, ensuring that vested rights in appeals are not affected by the new provisions.