JADAB SINGH AND OTHERS versus THE HIMACHAL PRADESH ADMINISTRATION . AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1960] 3 S.C.R. 755 · Decided: 28-04-1960 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

,. .• - r 
• 
' 
, 
3 S.C.R. SUPREM'E'COURT REPORTS·· 
755 
JADAB SINGH AND OTHERS 
v. 
THE HIMACHAL PRADESH ADMINISTRATION 
. 
AND ANOTHER 
...,., 
. 
(B. P. SINHA, c. J., P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. SUBBA 
RAO, K. C. DAS GUPTA and J.C. SHAH, JJ.) 
Estates, Abolition of--Enactment declared invalid as having 
been passed by State Legislature .not duly constituted-Validating 
Act passed by Parliament-Competence-Constitutional validity of 
the Abolition Act-Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed 
Estates and Land Reforms Act, I953 (Himachal IS oj.I954), ss. II, 
.I5-Himachal Pradesh . Legislative Assembly (Constitution ·and 
Proceedings) Validation Act (No; 56 of Igj8), ss. 3, 4-Constitution 
of India, Arts. Ig, JI, 3IA, 240, 248, Item No. 97, List!, Seventh 
Schedule. 
• On October IO, 1958, the Hi!Jlachal Pradesh Abolition of 
Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1953, was declared 
invalid by the Supreme Court on the grourid that the .Legislative 
Assembly of the New Himachal Pradesh State which passed it 
was not duly· constituted and was as such incompetent to pass 
the Act (Vide :·Skree Vinod Kumar·v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 
[1959] Supp. l S.C.R. l6b). The President by ·Ordina,nce .No. 7 
of 1958 validated the constitution and proceedings of tlie said 
Assembly. That Ordinance was replaced by the Validating Act 
No. 56 of 1958 passed by the Parliament. ·Section 3 of the Act 
validated the constitution and proceedings of the Legislative 
.Assembly of the Himachal Pradesh State ands: 4 prohibited the 
.courts from questioning the validity of any Act or, prpceeding of 
the Assembly on the ground of defect in its constitution. The 
Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land 
Reforms Act was accordingly validated. · The petitioners who 
were land-holders challenged the constitutionality of the Ordin-
ance and the validating Act, by petitions under Art. 32 of the 
Constitution : 
. 
Held, that (i) in view of Art. 240 as it stood befor!( its 
amendment by the Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956, 
the Parliament was competent to enact the validating Act; \ii) the 
provisions of the Abolition Act did not infringe Arts. 19 and 31 of 
the Constitution, and 
, 
(iii) the Abolition Act foll within the protec;tion_o_f Art .. 31A 
of the Constitution and it was not open to challenge on. the 
ground that it infringed Arts. 19 and 3Iof the Constitutfon. 
Shri Ram Narain v. State of Bombay, [1959] Supp. r S.C.R. 
489, referred to. · 
· 
. 
. 
The reason which precluded the· members of the. Old Hima-
chal Pradesh Assembly from functioning as the Legislature, of 
the New Himachal Pradesh State was that a Notification under 
s. 74 of the Representation of the People Act, t9:S1,·wa~ ilqt 
~ 
. 
. "4pr,il .2~,' 
756 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1960) 
c960 
issued. The Parliament, bi virtue of its residual powers of l_egisla-
tion under Art. 248 of the Constitution and item No. 97 of· 
Jadab Singh 
List I to the Seventh Schedule, was competent to remove the 
v. 
defect that arose because of the failure to issue the notification, 
Himaehal Pradesh and to validate the actual proceedings of the body which func-
A dministration 
tioned as the Legislature. 
. · 
Under Art. 240 of the Constitution, as it stood before it was 
amended by the Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956, 
the Parliament was not debarred from enacting the validating 
Act nor did the power of the Parliament to validate the acts an<! 
proceedings of the State Legislature come to an end when the 
State itself ceased to exist. 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: 
Petitions Nos. 161 of 
1958 and 109 of 1959. 
Petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution of 
India for the enforcement of fundamental rights. 
Achhru Ram, D. R. Prem and Ganpat Rai, for the 
petitioners (In Petn. No. 161 of 58 and 16, 17, 35, 58, 
69, 102, 109/1959). 
D. R. Prem, R. Thiagarajan and T. Satyanarayana, 
for the petitioners (In Petn. No. 36 of 1959). 
0. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India, R. Gana-
pathy Iyer, R. H. Dhebar and T. M. Sen, for the 
respondents (in all the petitions). 
1960. April 28. 
The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
Shah J. 
SHAH, J.-In the First Schedule to the Constitution, 
as originally enacted under the heading " Part C 
States" were set out the names of ten " C " States. 
The Parliament of India enacted The Government of 
Part C States Act, 49 of 1951, providing for the consti-
tution of Legislative Assemblies, Councils of Ministers 
and Counci
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.