Holding

The Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1996 is a valid legislative exercise that retrospectively removes the defect identified by the courts and therefore is not ultra vires.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined the constitutional validity of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1996, which amended several sections of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1953/1954 and retrospectively validated records of rights created between 1976 and 1996. The High Court had held the amendment ultra vires because it purported to nullify an earlier Supreme Court judgment. The Court held that a sovereign legislature may amend law retrospectively to remove a defect identified by the courts, and that such validation is permissible so long as it does not breach any other constitutional limitation. It relied on a line of authority that legislative removal of the substratum of a judgment is a valid exercise, whereas mere validation without removing the defect is invalid. Accordingly, the amendment Act was upheld, the High Court’s decision set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

Issues considered

The amendment Act is ultra vires the Constitution to the extent it seeks to nullify an earlier Supreme Court judgment.
Whether a State legislature can retrospectively amend and validate a law to cure defects pointed out by the judiciary.
Whether the amendment amounts to colourable legislation or encroachment on judicial power.
Whether the amendment violates Article 14 or other fundamental rights.
Whether the amendment infringes the basic structure doctrine of the Constitution.

Subjects

legislative amendmentretrospective validationultra viresbasic structure doctrineland revenueHimachal Pradeshconstitutional lawseparation of powersArticle 14

Judgment

[2009] 10 S.C.R. 821

STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH A
v.
NARAIN SINGH
(Civil Appeal No. 1678 of 2002)
JULY 8, 2009
B
[MARKANDEY KATJU AND ASOK KUMAR
• GANGULY, JJ.]

Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue (Amendment and
Validation) Act, 1996 - Challenge to - High Court held that C
the Amendment Act was ultra vires to the extent it sought to
nullify an earlier decision of Supreme Court on the Himachal
Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1953 - On appeal, Held : The
Amendment was necessitated in view of certain factors which
are predominantly in public interest and in interest of land D
revenue, land settlement and for updating the same - In fact
the amendments were made for effective implementation of
the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act
-Where there is a competent legislative provision which
retrospectively removes the substratum or foundation of a ·E
judgment, said exercise is a valid legislative exercise
provided it does not transgress any other constitutional
' limitation - In the instant case, the amendment Act removed
the defect of previous law and therefore, the validation
exercise was perfectly sound and cannot be faulted with - F
Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1953.

The Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue (Amendment
; and Validation) Act, 1996 was purportedly enacted to
remove and cure the defects in the Himachal Pradesh
Land Revenue Act, 1953. G

The High Court held that the Amendment Act was
ultra vires to the extent it sought to nullify an earlier

821 H
822 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 10 S.C.R.

A decision of Supreme Court on the Himachal Pradesh
Land Revenue Act, 1953. Hence the present appeals.

Allowing the appeals, the Court

HELD :1.1. From the statement of objects and
B reasons for
enacting the Himachal Pradesh Land
Revenue (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1996, it is clear
that the amendment was necessitated in view of certain
factors which are predominantly in public interest and the
said amendment has been made in view of the interest
C of land revenue, land settlement and for the purpose of
updating the same. In fact the amendments were made
for effective implementation of the provisions of the
Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1953. [Paras 20
and 21] [834-G-H; 835-A]
D
1.2. The power of the Sovereign legislature to
legislate within its field, both prospectively and
retrospectively cannot be questioned. Where there is a
competent legislative provision which retrospectively
E removes the substratum or foundation of a judgment, the
said exercise is a valid legislative exercise provided it
does not transgress any other constitutional limitation.
[Paras 26 and 30] [836-C-D; 837-F-G]

1.3. Where there is a mere.'validation without the
F defect being legislatively removed the legislative action
will amount to overruling the judgment by a legislative fiat
and that will be invalid. In the instant case the amendment
Act has removed the defect of the previous law and
therefore, the validation exercise is perfectly sound and
G cannot be faulted with. [Para 33] [839-D]

K. Nagaraj & others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and
another (1985) 1 SCC523; G.C. Kanungo v. State of Orissa
(1995) 5 SCC 96; BhubaneshwarSingh & another v. Union
H
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH v. NARAIN SINGH 823

~
of India & others (1994) 6 SCC 77; Shri PrithviCotton Mills A
Ltd. and another v. Broach Borough Municipality andothers
(1969) 2 SCC 283; Indian Aluminium Company etc. etc. v.
State ofKerala and others AIR 1996 SC 1431; Comorin
Match Industries (Pvt.)Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu AIR
1996 SC 916; Meerut Development Authority etc. v. Satbir B
Singh and others AIR 1997 SC 1467; State of Tamil Nadu
v. Mis. Arooran Sugars Limited AIR 1997 SC 1815; Indra
Sawhney v. Union of India AIR 2000 SC 498; Rai Ramkrishna
and othersetc. v. State of Bihar AIR 1963 SC 1667; Satnam
Overseas (Export) andothers v. State of Haryana and anotherc
(2003) 1 sec 561 and State of Bihar and others v. State
Pensioners Samaj (2006) 5 SCC 65, relied on.

Case Law Reference:
(1985) 1 sec 523 relied on Para 24 D
(1995) 5 sec 96 relied on Para 25
(1994) 6 sec 11 relied on Para 26
(1969) 2 sec 283 relied on Para 27
E
AIR 1996 SC 1431 relied on Para 28
AIR 1996 SC 1916 relied on Para 29
~

AIR 1997 SC 1467 relied on Para 31
F
·t· AIR 1997 SC 1815 relied on Para 32
AIR 2000 SC 498 relied on Para 33
AIR 1963 SC 1667 relied on Para 34
(2003) 1 sec 561 relied on Para 35 G
"' (2006) 5 sec 65 relied on Para 36
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
1678 of 2002.
H
824 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 10 S.C.R.

A From the Judgment & Order dated 17.4.2002 of the High
Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in C.W.P. No. 851 of
1996.

WITH

B C.A. No. 1679 of 2002.

Naresh K. Sharma for the Appellant.

Chandra Prakash Pandey for the Respondent.

C The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

GANGULY, J. 1. These appeals are directed against the
judgment dated 17.4.2000 of the High Court of Himachal
Pradesh at Shimla whereby the Division Bench of the High
o Court disposed of C.W.P. No.851/96 alongwith C.W.P.
No.1192/96, as common questions of law and facts arose in
those cases. C.W.P. No. 851/96 was filed by Narain Singh
while C.W.P. No.1192/96 was filed by three persons narnely
Shri Surat Singh, Shiv Singh Tegta and Murki Lal and in both
E the writ petitions, the respondents were the same

2. In both these cases, the constitutional validity of the
Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue (Amendment and Validation)
•
Act, 1996 (hereinafter called 'the amendment Act') was
challenged as being in conflict with the original provisions of
F the various sections of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue
Act, 1953 (Act No.6 of 1954) (hereinafter called 'the Principal
Act').

3. It was also contended in the writ petition that the
G amendment is violative of the basic structure of the Constitution.

4. The petitioners of C.W.P. No. 1192/96 and six other land
owners of Tehsil Rohru and Chirgaon, District Shimla had
earlier filed a C.W.P. No.206 of 1998 titled as Thakur Gyan

H
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH v. NARAIN SINGH 825
[ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.]

--1 1 Singh and others Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others A
wherein the petitioners sought the following relief:-

"(i) complete the on going land revenue settlement
operations as second Revised Settlement strictly iri
accordance with the intent of the two notifications
B
one pertaining to the special revision of the existing
records of right under Section 33 of the H.P. Land
.. Revenue Act, 1953 and the other for general
assessment of land revenue under Section 53 of the
said Act;
c
(ii) withdraw tnstruction Nos. 2, 4 and supplementary
instruction Nos. 2, 23 and 32 of Compendium of
Instructions, issued by the 4th respondent
(Settlement Officer);
D
(iii) bring up-to-date at re-settlement the field map of the
previous settlement without recourse to re-
measurement and preparation of the record of·
rights including wazib-ul-urs etc. strictly in,
accordance with Instructions contained in Para 222
E
of the Settlement Manual read with Appendix XXI
thereunder and consequently ,directing the deletion
of Naksha Bartan illegally prepared and not to
';
convert the Classification of the government waste
land recorded in the revenue records as also in
occupation of the estate-right holders into various F
lands and directing the modification of the
government policy with respect to regularisation of
encroachment detected during the settlement
proceedings; and
G
(iv) direct the respondents not to hand over/deliver the
revenue records to the revenue mohal staff till the
completion of the settlement including assessment
of land revenue, incorporated in the jamabandies."
H
826 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 10 S.C.R.

A 5. The said writ petition was disposed of by a reasoned
and detailed judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court
on 13/01/1994. While accepting the writ petition, the Division
Bench issued the following directions:-

"1. The respondents are directed to complete the on
B
going land revenue settlement operations in the
area in question as "second revised settlement" in
accordance with the instructions contained in
Paragraph 222 and Appendix XXI of the Punjab "
Settlement Manual.
c
2. The compendium of instructions (P-21) be
amended in consonance with and pertaining t 0
the procedure applicable to special revision of
record-of-rights. Resultantly, instructions continuing
D to be contained in P-21, contrary to letter June,
1986 (P-22) are ordered to be deleted.

3. The new record-of-rights pertaining to the areas in
question, prepared in the current settlement in
relation to 'Mohal-Bandi', 'Naksha Bartan', ·wazib-
E
ul-urs', classification of land, proposed DPFs and
UPFs etc., be ignored and re-settlement be started
subsequent to the stage of Forecast Report."

6. Aggrieved by the abovementioned judgment dated 13/
F 01/1994 of the Division Bench in C.W.P. No.206/1988, the
State filed a Special Leave Petition before this Court. Leave
was granted and the Civil Appeal No. 6025 of 1994 was
admitted for hearing by this Court. This Court while granting the
leave ordered a stay on the judgment of the High Court dated
G 13/01/1994.

7. It was contended by the respondents herein while the
said special leave petition was pending before this Court, the
State, in order to nullify the judgment of the High Court, dated
H 13/01/1994, enacted the amendment Act of 1996, whereby
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH v. NARAIN SINGH 827
[ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.]
... Sections 4, 16, 32, 33, 34, 36, 38, 47, 117 and 171 of the A
Principal Act were amended. The specific challenge to the
amendment Act of 1996 is that by amending the Sections 32,
33, 34, 36, 38 and 47 contained in Chapter IV of the Principal
Act, the whole scheme of Chapter IV of the Principal Act has
been disturbed and arbitrary powers have been conferred on B
. the Collector (Revenue). Such conferment of arbitrary power,
it is alleged, is unconstitutional.
~

8. Thus, those provisions of the Act of 1996, introduced
by way of amendment in the Principal Act, were challenged as
being ultra vires the Constitution of India and ma/a fide and
c
also as a piece of colourable legislation on the following
grounds:-

"(a) That the impugned legislation has been intended to
nullify the judgment of this Court in C.W.P. No. 206. D
of 1988 dated 13.1.1994. In support of this ground,
it has been stated that the apex Court has held that
a legislature has no power to render ineffective
earlier judicial decision by making a law. Such
powers if exercised would not be legislative power E
but a judicial power exercised by it, which
encroaches upon the judicial powers of the State
t, exclusively vested in Courts. (See: case reported
in 1995 (5) S.C.C. 96).

(b) F
That the impugned legislation apparently seeks to
validate the record of rights prepared after 1976,
which is opposed to rule of law and natural Justice.
This ground is purported to be supported by stating
that in the earlier writ petition, there was a challenge
to the errors in the field maps and jamabandies G
prepared during the settlement, which cannot be
validated as has been done by the impugned
legislation, this amounts to denial of opportunity and
equal protection of law under Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. According to the petitioners, H
828 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 10 S.C.R.

A if the impugned legislation stands, the land owners
will be rendered without any remedy to redress their
grievances, hence the same is against the rule of
law.

(c) That by making the impugned legislation i.e. Act of
B
1996 effective retrospectively from 1976, the same
is liable to be struck down as unreasonable and
arbitrary. Moreover, it has been stated that the said
validation is bad in law inasmuch as the executive
instructions earlier issued by the Settlement Officer,
c Shimla and Kinnaur Districts, respondent No.4,
were held to be without any authority of law by this
Court in its earlier decision because the same were
inconsistent with the provisions of the Principal Act.

D (d) That the Act of 1996 being retrospective in its
application adversely affects the rights of estate
right holders of Rohru and Chirgaon, which is
unconstitutional. It has also been highlighted in this
ground that the retrospective effect given to the Act
E of 1996 is from the year 1976, being for a period
of about 20 years, which itself is illegal.

(e) That there are inherent conflicts between the original
Sections of the Principal Act and the amended
Sections of the Act of 1996. Moreover, the same
F suffer from the vice of excessive delegation and is
against the Scheme of the Principal Act. This is
sought to be shown by giving the example that prior
to the amendment, only the State Government and
Financial Commissioner had the rule making
G powers under the Principal Act, whereas now by
virtue of Sections 4(5), 34-A and 47-A the •
respondent-State has descended down by one
step whereby the Collector has been empowered
to issue executive instructions, which are in the
H nature of the delegated legislation. This delegation
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH v. NARAIN SINGH 829
[ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.]

of powers to the Collector has been challenged as A
being against the basic Scheme of the Principal
Act. It has also been stated that the powers so
delegated to the Collector are unfettered and
unguided and are capable of being abused.
B
(f) That by virtue of the amendments made by the Act
of 1996, the sub-division of estates styled as
'Upmahal' are sought to be regularised and
validated, which has been questioned as being an
act of illegal splitting ab initio, making the same C
illegal.

(g) Despite the directions of this Court in the earlier
case that fresh measurement should be carried
out, the earlier incorrect measurement and
assessment of land revenue, which was held to be D
so by this Court, have been declared as having
been validly prepared by the Act of 1996. It has
been stated that the petitioners have
apprehensions that respondent No.4. Settlement
Officer, will go ahead with the assessment of the E
land revenue of this area on the basis of invalid
records and complete the settlement operations.
This will result in irreparable injury to the rights of
. :...
the petitioners.

(h) That the Act of 1996 takes away- the remedy of F
review under Section 16 of the Principal Act, thus
debarring the Financial Commissioner to review the
order passed by him in revision. In this manner, the
impugned amendment in Section 16 of the Principal
Act has deprived the public at large from one G
) .. channel from remedy of review, and on the other
hand, the highest authority under the Principal Act
has been debarred from reviewing the order
passed in revision. The amendment in question is
against the principle of natural justice besides H
830 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 10 S.C.R.

.
A being against the basic structure of the Constitution " r

of India and the Principal Act, as per the petitioners.

(i) Lastly, that the impugned amendments by way of
the Act of 1996 are in direct conflict with the relevant
provisions of the Principal Act, if they are allowed
B
to stand, it will result in changing the basic structure
of the Principal Act."

9. Thus, the writ petition prayed before the High Court for:-

c "(i) Issuance of an order, writ or direction declaring the
Act of 1996 as ultra vires the law and as also being
violative of the basic structure of the Constitution of
India.

(ii) For issuing a writ of mandamus directing the
D respondents/State not to give effect to Sections 2-
B, 2-C, 3 to 6, 9, 10, 12 and 13 of the Act of 1996.

(iii) To declare the aforesaid Sections as bad, in law,
they being in direct conflict with the original
E Sections/provisions of Sections 4, 16, 32 to 35, 38
and 47 of the Principal Act and as also being
against the basic Scheme of the said Act."
..
10. Same relief was also prayed for in the other connected
writ petition, namely, C.W.P. No.851/1996.
F
11. In the impugned judgment, the Division Bench of the
High Court did not uphold all the contentions mentioned above
but came to a finding that the Amendment Act of 1996 is ultra
vires to the extent that it has sought to nullify the earlier decision
G of this court rendered in CWP No.206/1988 dated 13.01.1994
between Thakur Gian Singh & Ors. vs. State of Himachal . '.

Pradesh & Ors.

12. It may be noted that in the impugned judgment there
H is no finding that the amendment Act enacted suffers from lack
,, STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH v. NARAIN SINGH 831
[ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.]
.. · of legislative competence of the State . A
"
13. It is nobody's case that the State legislature is
incompetent to enact the said amended Act. There is also no
finding in the impugned judgment that the amendment Act in
any way infringes or abridges any fundamental right of the
B
petitioner.

.. 14. Normally the restrain on the sovereign power of
legislation of a State legislature is limited. The legislature has
to exercise its legislative power, which is otherwise plenary, in
accordance with the distribution of legislative power under c
•. Chapter Part XI Chapter I of the Constitution and it has also to
exercise such power consistent with the mandate of Part Ill of
the Constitution and other Constitutional limitations.

15. Learned High Court did not find that the impugned D
amendment Act transgresses either of these limitations in any
way. But the High Count found that the impugned amendment
Act is ultra vires the Constitution as it seeks to nullify the
previous judgment.

16. This Court is not called !Jpon to pronounce on the E
correctness or otherwise of the previous judgment rendered by
the Division Bench of the High Court dat~ 13.01.1994. The
~ appeal from the. said judgment, being-civil Appeal 6025 of
1994, came to be heard by this Court and was disposed of by
a judgment and order dated 16.07.1996 to the following effect:- F

"Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue (Amendment and
Validation) Act, 1996 (Act No.3 of 1996) has further
amended the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1954 G
and validated certain actions taken in relation to the making
'1
or special revision of record-of-rights in the State. Learned
. counsel adds that the revision of record-of-rights in the
State is, therefore, to be made in accordance with the law
so amended with retrospective effect; and the directions
H
832 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 10 S.C.R. .._
A to the contrary in the impugned judgment of the High Court • r
rendered prior to enactment of Act No. 3 of 1996 have
become infructuous. Learned counsel also submits that no
specific relief has been granted to any individual by the
-
impugned judgment which merely gives some directions
B regarding the general revision of record-of-rights. For this
reason, learned counsel submits that it is not necessary
for the State Government to pursue this appeal.
•
Learned counsel for the respondents, while
conceding that the effect of the aforesaid Act No. 3 of 1996
c is to 'amend the law relating to revision of record-of-rights,
further submits that the effect thereof is not to render
infructuous all the directions given in the impugned
judgment. According to learned counsel for the
respondents, some part of these directions /emains
D effective even after the enactment of Act No. 3 of 1996.
He also states that the validity of Act No. 3 of 1996 has
also been challenged by a separate writ petition in the High
Court of Himachal Pradesh.

E In view of the common ground emerging from the
above submissions, it appears to us that it is needless to
consid~r the merits of the points raised in the appeal since
even according to the appellant -State of Himachal
Pradesh the directions given in the impugned judgment are
F no longer effective having been rendered infructuous by the
subsequently enacted Act No. 3 of 1996. Moreover, there
is no relief granted to any specific individual and the
directions relate to the general revision of record-of-rights
in the state which obviously has to be governed by the
existing law applicable at the time of performance of the
G
exercise. If any grievance is made of non-compliance of
any of the al 1eged surviving directions by the State
Government before the High Court, it would be open to the
State Government to show that the same have become
infructuous for the reason given by them and in that
H
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH v. NARAIN SINGH 833
[ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.]
,,
-'I situation it would be for the High Court to decide the A
..... contention on merits .

In view of the statement made on behalf of the
appellants th.at the directions given in the impugned
judgment have become infructuous, the appeal is disposed
8
of accordingly, without deciding any point on merits."

17. The said order was passed after hearing learned
counsel for both the parties. From a perusal of the aforesaid
order, it is clear that the appeal was disposed of as it was
contended before this Court by t~e learned coU11sel for the State c
that in view of the subsequent amendment of the law, the
-I
contentions of the appellant have become infructuous. This court
recorded the said submissions and disposed of the said
appeal as such.
D
18. Therefore, the only question which survives in this case
is whether the State can in exercise of its sovereign legislative
power enact an amenqment Act seeking to remove and cure
the defects in the previous law despite there being a judgment
on the previous law.
E
19. In the instant case before we examine these questions
it would be appropriate to consider the statement of objects and
\ :. reasons for enacting the amendment act. The statement is as
under:-
F
'The volume of land records in each revenue estate
has considerably increased due to the increase in number
of holdings partially on account of increase in population
and partially on account of decrease of extent of land
holdings under the agrarian reforms, to bring the volume G
'!
of the land records maintained in each revenue estate
within manageable size, it has become essential to create
more estates or sub-estates. Apart from this, with the
enactment the Standards of Weights and Measures Act,
1976, it is now mandatory to convert the non-metric
H
834 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 10 S.C.R.

A measurements into metric measurements. Due to different
scales of measurements prevalent in various parts of the
State, the conversion to metric system involves the
·complete remeasurements of all the revenue estates in the
State. There is no provision either in the Himachal Pradesh
B Land Revenue Act, 1954 or in the Punjab Settlement
Manual, as applicable to Himachal Pradesh, for the
creation of estates/sub-estates by the Collectors or for the
complete remeasurements of the estates. In the absence
of these statutory provisions of the creation of more estates
c or sub divisions of estates and the complete
remeasurement of the estates for conversion into metric
measurements and the instructions/ directions given by the
Collectors, during the settle'ment operations are not
sustainable in the eyes of law. Consequently the settlement
operations already carried out in various parts of the State
D
are likely to become infructuous and resettlemeAt
operations are likely to cause great public inconvenience
and loss to the State Exchequer. Besides this certain other
minor amendments in the Act are essential in the changed
circumstances. It is also essential to validate the action of
E the Collector already taken by him during the special
revision of record-of-rights in relation to the creation of
estates/sub-division of estates, complete remeasurement
of all estates based upon metric system, giving directions/
issuing instructions to carry out the settlement operations
F and for the effective implementation of the provisions of
the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1954.

This Bill see.ks to achieve the aforesaid objectives."

G 20. From a perusal of the aforesaid statement of objects
·and reasons it is clear that the amendment has been
necessitated in view of certain factors which are predominantly r
in public interest and the said amendment has been made in
view of the interest of land revenue, land settlement and for the
purpose of updating the same.
H
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH v. NARAIN SIN.GH 835
[ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.]
21. In .fact the amendments have been made for an A
effective implementation of the provisions of t:1e Himachal
Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1954.

22. It is provided in sub-section (2) of sedion 1 of the
amendment Act that the said amendment shall come into force
8
at once except section 2 (b), 5, 6 and 10 which shall be
deemed to have come into force on the 23rd of September
1976. Section 13 of the said act provides for validation. The
said section runs as follows:-

"13. Notwithstanding anything contained in the Himachal C
Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1954 and rules, instructions,
notifications made or issued thereunder, or in any law for
the time being in force or in any judgment, decree or order
of any court or other authority, whefe at any time after the
23rd day of September, 1976 and before the D
commencement of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue
(Amendment and Validation) Act, 1996, if any record-of-
rights or special revision of record-of-rights has been
made in respect of the lands, situated in the State of
Himachal Pradesh, such making or special revision of E
record-of-rights shall, and shall be deemed always to have
been valid and shall not be questioned on the ground that
the amendments made vide sections 2 (b), 5, 6 and 10 of
this Act were not in force at that time when such record-
of-rights were made or specially revised." F
23. An argument was, however, made before the High
Court that the aforesaid amendment is actuated by a ma/a fide
motive and is a piece of colourable legislation. The aforesaid
contention was, however, not accepted by the High Court in the
impugned judgment. In fact such contention is not tenable on G
principle.

24. Reference in this connection be made to a decision
of this Court in the case of K. Nagaraj & others Vs. State of
Andhra Pradesh and another - 1985 1 SCC 523, wherein H
836 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 10 S.C.R.

A Chief Justice Chandrachud, speaking for a three-Judge Bench •
said that the legislature, as a body, cannot be accused of
having passed a law for an extraneous purpose. Learned Chief
Justice held that the concept of "transferred malice" is unknown
in the field of legislation provided the legislature enacts the law
B within its powers.

25. The aforesaid principle in K. Nagaraj (supra) has
been accepted by this Court in many cases and a reference in
this connection may be made to a decision of this Court in G.C.
Kanungo Vs. State of Orissa - (1995) 5 SCC 96.
c
26. The power of the Sovereign legislature to legislate
within its field, both prospectively and retrospectively cannot be
questioned. This position has been settled in many judgments
of this Court. Some of them may be considered below.
D
27. In Bhubaneshwar Singh & another Vs. Union of India
& others - (1994) 6 SCC 77, the Court expressly approved the
aforesaid position in Para 9 at page 82-83. In so far as
validating Acts are concerned, this Court in Bhubaneshwar
E Singh (supra) also considered the question in para 11 and held .
that the Court has the powers by virtue of such validating
legislation, to "wipe out" judicial pronouncements of the High
Court and the Supreme Court by removing the defects in the
statute retrospectively when such statutes had been declared
ultra vires by Courts in view of its defects. This Court has held
F that such legislative exercise will not amount to encroachment
on the judicial power. This Court has accepted that such
legislative device which removes the vice in previous legislation
is not considered an encro;:;chment on judicial power. In
support of the aforesaid proposition, this Court in
G Bhubaneshwar Singh (supra) relied on the proposition laid
down by the Chief Justice Hidayatullah, speaking for the
Constitution Bench in Shri Prithvi Cotton Mills Ltd. and another
Vs. Broach Borough Municipality and others -(1969) 2 SCC
283.
H
- ..
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH v. NARAIN SINGH 837
[ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.]

28. Again in the case of Indian Aluminium Company etc . A
etc. Vs. State of Kera/a and others -AIR 1996 SC 1431, this
Court while summarizing the principle held that a legislature
cannot directly overrule a judicial decision but it has the power
to make the decision ineffective by removing the basis on
which the decision is rendered, while at the same time adhering 8
to the constitutional imperatives and the legislature is
competent to do so [See para 59 sub-para (9) at page 1446.]
.. 29. In the case of Comorin Match Industries (Pvt.) Limited
Vs. State of Tamil Nadu -AIR 1996 SC 1916, the facts were
that the assessment orders passed under Central Sales Tax
c
Act were set aside by the High Court and the State was directed
to refund the amount to the assessee. As the State failed to
carry it out, contempt petitions were filed but the assessment
orders were validated by passing the amendment Act of 1969
with retrospective effect and the Court held that the tax D
demanded became valid and enforceable. The Court held that
in such a situation the State will not be precluded from realizing
the tax due as subsequently the assessment order was
validated by the amending Act of 1969 and the order passed
in the contempt proceeding will not have the effect of the writing E
off the debt which is statutorily owed by the assessee to the
State. The learned Judges held that the effect of the amending
Act is retrospective validation of the assessment orders which
were struck down by the High Court. Therefore, the assessment
order is legislatively valid and the tax demands are also F
enforceable. [See paras 33 and 35 at page 1925]

30. It is therefore clear where there is a competent
legislative provision which retrospectively removes the
substratum or foundation of a judgment, the said exercise is a
G
valid legislative exercise provided it does not transgress any
other constitutional limitation. Therefore, this Court cannot
-~
uphold the reasoning in the High Court judgment that the
impugned amendment is invalid just because it nullifies some
provisions of the earlier Act.
H
A
838 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 10 S.C.R.

31. The aforesaid principles have been reiterated by a
three-Judge Bench in Meerut Development Authority etc. Vs.
-
Satbir Singh and others - AIR 1997 SC 1467, Justice
Ramaswamy speaking for the Court .summed up the position
in para 10 as follows:-
B
"10. It is well settled by catena of decisions of this Court
that when this Court in exercise of power of judicial review,
has declared a particular statute to be invalid, the
Legislature has no power to overrule the judgment;
however, it has the power to suitably amend the law by use
c of appropriate phraseology removing the defects pointed
out by the Court and by amending the law inconsistent with
the law declared by the Court so that the defects which
were pointed out were never on statute for effective
enforcement of the law. This Court has considered in
D extenso the case law in a recent judgment in Indian
Aluminium Co. V. State of Kera/a (1996) 2 JT (SC) 85:
(1996 AIR sew 1051) had held that such an exercise of
power to amend a statute is not an incursion on the judicial
power of the Court but is a statutory exercise of the
E constituent power to suitably amend the law and to validate
the actions which have been declared to be invalid .. ."

32. A Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of State
of Tamil Nadu Vs. Mis. Arooran Sugars Limited - AIR 1997
F SC 1815, reiterated the same princi pie after analyzing several
cases on the point. The Court has summed up the position as
follows:-

"16 .... It is open to the legislature to remove the defect
pointed out by the court or to amend the definition or any
G other provision of the Act in question retrospectively. In this
process it cannot be said that there has been an
encroachment by the legislature over the power of the •
judiciary. A court's directive must always bind unless the
conditions on which it is based are so fundamentally
H altered that under altered circumstances such decisions
- STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH v. NARAIN SINGH 839
[ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.]
could not have been given. This will include removal of the A
defect in a statute pointed out in the judgment in question,
as well as alteration or substitution of provisions of the
enactment on which such judgment is based, with
retrospective effect. .. "
B
33. In Indra Sawhney Vs. Union of India - AIR 2000 SC
498, Justice Jagannadha Rao speaking for a three-Judge
Bench explained the position by saying that it would be
permissible for the legislature to remove the defect which is the
cause for discrimination and which defect was pointed out by G
the Court. The learned Judge made it very clear that this defect
can be removed both retrospectively and prospectively by
legislative action and the previous actions can be validated. But
where there is a mere validation without the defect being
legislatively removed the legislative action will amount to
overruling the judgment by a legislative fiat and that will be D
invalid. In the instant case the amendment Act has removed the
defect of the previous law and therefore, the validation exercise
is perfectly sound and cannot be faulted with.

34. In Rai Ramkrishna and others etc. Vs. State of Bihar E
- AIR 1963 SC 1667, a Constitution Bench of this Court
speaking through Justice Gajendragadkar, as His Lordship then
was, explained the principle with characteristic clarity, which is
reproduced hereinbelow:-

"10. The other point on which there is no dispute F
before us is that the legislative power conferred on the
appropriate Legislatures to enact law in respect of topics
covered by the several entries in the three Lists can be
exercised both prospectively and retrospectively. Where
the Legislature can make a valid law, it may provide not G
only for the prospective operation of the material
provisions of the said law but it can also provide for the
retrospective operation of the said provisions. Similarly,
there is no doubt that the legislative power in question
includes the subsidiary or the auxiliary power to validate H
840 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 10 S.C.R.

A laws which have been found to be invalid. If a law passed
by a legislature is struck down by the Courts as being
invalid for one infirmity or another, it would be competent
to the appropriate Legislature to cure the said infirmity and
pass a validating law so as to make the provisions of the
B said earlier law effective from the date when it was
passed. This position is treated as firmly established
since the decision of the Federal Court in the case of
United Provinces v. Mst. Atiqa Begum, 1940 FCR 110:
(AIR 1941 FC 16)."
c 35. See the decision of this Court in Satnam Overseas
(Export) and others Vs. State of Haryana and another- (2003)
1 sec 561, para 52 where reference was made to the ratio in
Rai Ramkrishna (supra).

D 36. Recently in the case of State of Bihar and others Vs.
State Pensioners Samaj - (2006) 5 SCC 65, this Court
reiterated the same position in paragraph 16 at page 71, which
is reproduced below:-

"16 ....... It is always open to the legislature to alter the law
E retrospectively as long as the very premise on which the
earlier judgment declared a certain action as invalid is
removed. The situation would be one of a fundamental
change in the circumstances and such a validating Act was
not open to challenge on the ground that it amounted to
F usurpation of judicial powers.

37. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court finds that in the
instant case the amending Act read with its validation clause
correctly passed the tests laid down by this Court. The appeals
G- are allowed. The judgment of the-Hgh Court is thus set aside
with no orders as to costs.

B.B.B. Appeals allowed.