HARLA versus THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Citation: [1952] 1 S.C.R. 110 · Decided: 24-09-1951 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN, VIVIAN BOSE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

1951 
Sept. 24. 
110 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
HARLA 
ti. 
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
[MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN and V1v1AN BosE JJ.J 
[1952] 
Jaipur Laws Act, 1923, .<. 3 (b)-faipur Opium Act, 1923-Laa, 
Passed by Council of i'vlinisters not promulgated or published in 
Gazette-Validity of latv-Necessity of pron1ulgation 
of laws-
Natural justice. 
Natural justic;e requires that before a la\v can .become opera-
tive it must be promulgated or published. It inust be broadcast 
in ·some recognisable \Vay so that all men inay know what it is ; 
or at least there must be some special rule or regulation or 
customary channel by or through which such knowledge can be 
acquired with the exercise of due and reasonable, diligence. 
· The Council of Ministers appointed by the Crown Representa-
tive ·for the gov_ernment and administration of the : Jaipur. St.ate 
passed a Resolution in 1923 purporting to enact a law cailed the 
Jaipur Opium Act,. Out this law was neither promulgated or 
published in the Gazette nor made knoy,rn to the public. 
The 
Jaipur La\vs Act, 1923, \vhich \Vas also passed by the Council 
aqd which came into force on the 1st NoYetnber, 1924, provided 
by s. 3 (b) that the law to be administered by the court of the 
Jaipur State shall be.. "(b) all the regulations now in force 
within the said territories and the 
enactments 
and 
regulations 
that may hereafter be passed f_ron1 time to ti1ne by the State. and 
·published in the Official Gazette." 
Jn 1938 the Jaipur Opium 
1\ct \Vas amcnde<l by adding a clause to the effect that "it shaH 
come into force frotn the 1st of September, 1924." 
Held, that the 1nere passing of the Resolution 
of the C0uncil 
without further publication or promulgation of the law was not 
sufficient to make the law operative and the Jaipur Opiun1 Act 
was not there.fore a valid la\v. 
l-lcld further, that the said Act 
was not saved by s. 3 (b) of the Jaipur Laws Ac~ 1923, as it 
was not a valid la\v in force on the 1st November, 1924, and the 
mere addition of a clause in 1938 that it shall come into force in 
1924 was of no use. 
CRIMINAL 
APPELLATE 
JuR1smcTION: 
Criminal 
Appeal No. 5 of 1951. 
Appeal from the Judgment 
and Order dated 18th August, 1950, of the High Court 
of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur (Nawal Kishm<o 
C. J. and Dave J.) in Criminal Reference No. 229 of 
Sambat 2005. 
H. /. Umrigar for the appellant. 
G. C. Mathur for the respondent. 
I 
I '
S.C;R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
111 
1951. September 24. The Judgment of ·the f::onrt 
was delivered by 
BosE J.-The appellant was 
convicted · under sec-
tion 7 of the Jaipur Opium Act and fined Rs. 50. 
The .case as such 
is 
trivial but the High Court of 
Rajasthan in Jaipur granted special leave to appeal 
as an important point touching the vires of the Act 
arises. We will state the facts chronologically. 
It is· conceded that the Rulers of Jaipur had full 
powers of government including those of legislation. 
On the 7th of September, 1922, the late Maharaja 
died and at the time of his death his successor, the 
present Maharaja, was a minor. 
Accordingly, 
the 
Crown Representative appointed a Council of Ministers 
!o look after the government and administration of 
the State during the Maharaja's minority. 
On the 11th of December, 1923, this Council passed 
a Resolution which purported to enact the 
Jaipur 
Opium Act, and the only question is whether the mere 
passing of the Resolution without promulgation or 
publication in the Gazette, or other means to make 
the Act known to the public, was sufficient to make it 
la:w. We are of opinion that it was not. But before 
giving our reasons for so holding, we will refer to some 
further facts. 
About the same time (that is to say, in the. year 
1923-we have not been given the exact date) the same 
Council enacted the Jaipur Laws Act, 1923. Section 3(b) 
of this Act provided as follows :-
"3. Subject to 
the 
prerogative 
of the Ruler' the 
law to be administered by the Court of Jaipur State 
shall be as follows : 
(b) All the regulations now . in force within the 
said territories, and the enactments and regulations 
that may hereafter be passed from time to time by 
the State and published in the Official Gazette." 
This law came into force on the 1st of November, 
1924. 
It is admitted that the Jaipur Opium Act was never 
published in the Gazette either before or after the 1st 
of November, 1924. 
But it is contended that that was 
1911 
-· -··-· 
Harl'O· 
v. 
State of 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.