2003 (6) TMI 205 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Validates Retrospective Building Height Law, Resolves Conflicting Regulations

The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Bangalore City Planning Area Zonal Regulations (Amendment & Validation) Act, 1996. The Act ... Whether the Bangalore City Planning Area Zonal Regulations (Amendment & Validation) Act, 1996 (Karnataka Act No.2 of 1996) [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'], is constitutionally valid? Held that:- It is true that under Section 13, the method of framing of Zonal Regulations is provided under which a maximum height of building can be provided by the impugned Act. The legislature in its wisdom thought to provide a maximum height of a new building in the statute itself and it is no longer left to the discretion of the authority to provide a maximum height of a new construction by framing Zonal Regulations under the Act. Now, the Outline Development Plan as prescribed in the Schedule appended to the new Act, cannot even be amended by the procedure prescribed under Chapter III of the Planning Act. The impugned Act substituted the existing Regulations with a statutory Zonal Regulation to the extent it provided maximum height of new building. Further, this is done with retrospective effect i.e. for the entire period during which the Outline Development Plan remained in force i.e. from 1972 to 1984. It is settled law that where a law is retrospectively amended, the consequences of such retrospective amendment are that all actions have to proceed on the premise that the law, as amended, was always the law in force. In that view of the matter there was neither any need for the legislature to modify the maximum height of a new building in the manner provided in the Planning Act nor to amend the provisions of the Planning Act providing for method of framing Zonal Regulations. For the aforesaid reasons we are of the view that the impugned Act is constitutionally valid and the view taken by the High Court in striking down the Act was erroneous. Appeal allowed. Issues Involved:1. Constitutional validity of the Bangalore City Planning Area Zonal Regulations (Amendment & Validation) Act, 1996.2. Conflict between Outline Development Plan and Municipal Corporation Bye-laws regarding building height.3. Legislative competence and power to enact retrospective laws.4. Judicial review of legislative amendments and validation acts.5. Impact of legislative amendments on prior judicial decisions.Detailed Analysis:1. Constitutional Validity of the Bangalore City Planning Area Zonal Regulations (Amendment & Validation) Act, 1996:The primary issue was whether the Act, which retrospectively modified the height regulations for buildings in Bangalore, was constitutionally valid. The Supreme Court held that the legislature has the power to enact laws retrospectively, provided it removes the basis of the judicial decision that declared the earlier law invalid. The Court found that the impugned Act did indeed remove the basis of the High Court's earlier judgment by retrospectively modifying the Zonal Regulations to increase the permissible building height from 55 feet to above 165 feet.2. Conflict Between Outline Development Plan and Municipal Corporation Bye-laws Regarding Building Height:The case involved a conflict where the Outline Development Plan and Zonal Regulations set a maximum building height of 55 feet, while the Municipal Corporation's Bye-laws allowed up to 80 feet. The High Court initially ruled that the construction permit for an 80-foot building was invalid as it contravened the Zonal Regulations. The Supreme Court noted that the impugned Act retrospectively amended the Zonal Regulations, thus resolving the conflict by making the higher building height permissible.3. Legislative Competence and Power to Enact Retrospective Laws:The Supreme Court reaffirmed that both Parliament and State Legislatures have plenary powers to legislate retrospectively within their assigned fields. The Court cited several precedents to establish that a validating Act can retrospectively cure defects that led to the invalidation of prior laws and make ineffective judgments of competent courts. The Court concluded that the Karnataka Legislature had the competence to enact the impugned Act and that it effectively removed the basis of the High Court's earlier decision.4. Judicial Review of Legislative Amendments and Validation Acts:The Court emphasized that while it can declare a statute unconstitutional if it transgresses constitutional limits, it cannot inquire into the propriety of the legislative exercise. The Court noted that the legislature's intention in passing the Act is beyond judicial scrutiny. The impugned Act was found to have constitutionally valid objectives, as it altered the legal basis upon which the High Court's earlier judgment was based.5. Impact of Legislative Amendments on Prior Judicial Decisions:The Supreme Court held that the impugned Act did not merely negate the effect of the prior judgment but removed the very basis upon which the judgment was rendered. By retrospectively modifying the Zonal Regulations to allow a higher building height, the Act made it impossible for the High Court to conclude that the concerned buildings violated the terms of the Zonal Regulations. The Court cited precedents to support the view that legislative amendments can validly alter the basis of judicial decisions, provided they do so within the scope of legislative competence.Conclusion:The Supreme Court concluded that the Bangalore City Planning Area Zonal Regulations (Amendment & Validation) Act, 1996, was constitutionally valid. The Act effectively removed the basis of the High Court's earlier decision by retrospectively modifying the Zonal Regulations to permit higher building heights. The judgment under appeal was set aside, and the appeals were allowed with no order as to costs.