LexISHWAR DAS MALHOTRA versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
c
D
:}-
E
p
G
H
ISHWAR DAS MALHOTRA
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
February 8, 1972
411
[S. M. $Il(RJ, C.J., A. N. GROVER, A. N. RAY, D. G. PALEKAR
AND M. H. BEG, JJ.J
Jammu and Kammir (Extension of Laws) Act; 1956, Ss. 1 & 2-
Notification by Cen.tral Govern1nent appointing November 1, 1956, as date·
of coining into force of £.'(tension Act to Jammu and Kashmir-Exten·
sion of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act 1946 in the Schedule of
£~tension Act to Jan1n1u and Kashmir-Constitution (Seventh Amend-
ment) Act, 1956-Ef!ect of.
By ti>! Constitution (Application to J ammu & Kashmir) Order, 1954,.
one of the entries on which Parliament could make laws was Entry 8!>
of List I -of the Seventh Schedule, dealing With 'Extension of the powers
and jurisdiction of members of a police force belonging to 'any State 1 to
any area outside that St~te'. The Jammu and Kashmir (Extension of
Laws) Act, 1956, (El'tension Act) received the President's assent on
September 25, 1956. Section I (2) provides that it shall .come into force
on such date as the Central Government may, by notification in the Offi-
cial Gazette appoint.
By a notification ~ted October 10, 1956, Novem-
ber 1, 1956 was appointed as the date for the coming into force of the
Extension Act in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. Tlie effect of the
notification and s. 2 of the Act was that the Delhi Speei"1 Police Estab-
lishment Act, 1946, (the impugned Act)
which was one of the Act&
mentioned in the Sc'.hedule to the Extension Act, came into ·force in the
State from November
1, 1956.
On the same day the Constitution
(Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956, came into force and Delhi ceased to·
be a part C State and became Union Territory,
On the question whether the impugned Act ~
not validly extended
to. the State of Janunu and Kashmir, because, Delhi ceased to be a Part C
State on November 1, 1956,
HELD : (I) When the Extension Act was passed, Parliament had·
the competence to extend the impugned Act to the State of Jrunmu and
Kashmir, because; the Delhi Special Police. establishment was a police
force belonging to n Part C State. Assuming Parliament_ qeased to have
the power as from November 1, 1956, the Central Government could
validly issue the notification under s. I (2) appointing the date from whjch
the Extension Act would come into force, and as soon as this 'W:l"S done,
by virtue of s. 2, the impugned Act came into force in the State, {414 B-EJ
State of A~sam v. Brhvian Kurkalang, A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 223, followed.
(2) The general plrinciple that the executive power ccrreSpcinds to the·
legislative power, in An. 73, of the Constitution is subject to exceptiollJ.
The executive· power· to ex-te a valid Jaw does not dea~e if power fu
make that law has ceased to exist. (415 B-DJ
.
(3) In so far. as the impugned legislation· is a law with respect to
Entry 80, even if there was repugnancy it must override any laws re-
pugnant thereto in Jammu and Kashmir. (415 D-EJ
412
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ·
[1972] 3 S.C.R.
(4) There is nothing in s. 1(2) of the Extension Act which makes
it obligatory that the notification should issue simult:Uleously with the
date of the coming into force of the Act.
On the contrary, the notifica-
tion must ordinarily issue earliei' than the date of the coming into force
of the law.
The notification could have been issued any time after the
President had given his assent to t'he Aclt, '3Dd as Soon as the notification
was issued, s. 2 came into effect and all the Acts and Ordinances men·
tioned in the Schedule stood automatically extended and came into force
in the State· (416 A.CJ
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
'93 of 1971.
L. M. Singhvi, P. N. Tewari, 0. C. Mathur, l .. B. Dadacharji
:and Ravinder Narain, for the appellant.
Niren De, Attorney-General tor India, lagadish Swarup,
'Solicitor-General of India, R. N. Sachthey and R. L. Mehta, for
respondents Nos. 1 & 2.
/
Advocate-General for the State of lammu and Kashmir and
.R.. N. Sachthey, for respondent No. 3.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by-
Sikri, C;J. This appeal, by special leave,
is directed
against the judgment of the Janimu & Kashmir High Court hold-
jng that the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, (25 of
1946) was validly exrended to the State of Janimu and Kashmir
by the J animu and Kashmir (Extension of Laws) Act, 1956-
:hereinafter referred to as the Extension ·Act.
The HiExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.