S. T. SADIQ versus STATE OF KERALA& ORS.

Citation: [2015] 3 S.C.R. 287 · Decided: 04-02-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANJAN GOGOI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2015] 3 S.C.R. 287 
S. T. SADIQ 
v. 
STATE OF KERALA& ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 3962 of 2007) 
FEBRUARY 04, 2015 
[RANJAN GOGOi AND ROHINTON FALi NARIMAN, JJ.] 
Kera/a Cashew Factories Acquisition (Amendment) 
A 
B 
c 
Act, 1995: s.6 - Constitutional validity of - Notices for 
acquisition of 10 factories sent between 1984 and 1986 -
Similar notices sent to 36 other factories in 1988 by which 
the said factories a/so acquired under the Act - In case of 36 o 
factories, Supreme Court passed directions to handover the 
factories to the respective owners - In case of 10 factories, 
directions passed to take them over by Amendment Act -
The Amendment Act of 1995 was brought into force to cover 
all 46 acquisitions that had been made under the Principal E 
Act- Whether s. 6 was bad as it sought to directly nullify the 
directions passed by Supreme Court in the two judgments 
and whether s. 6 violated Article 14 inasmuch as it gave 
discriminatory treatment to the 10 factories and 36 factories 
- Held: The legislature cannot directly annul a judgment of F 
a court - s. 6 directly sought to upset a final judgment inter-
parties and was bad on this count and is unconstitutional-A 
bare reading of the Statement of Objects of the Amendment 
Act shows that the Kera/a Legislature wished to interfere with G 
two judgments of the Supreme Court making no distinction 
between the 36 factories and the 10 factories - The handing 
back of only 36 factories would be patently discriminatory as 
\ 
a/146 factories were similarly situate and were treated as such 
H 
287 
288 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 3 S.C.R. 
A by the state by issuing common notices to all of them uls.3 
of the Act - The.se 36 factories are functioning under their 
respective owners for the last twenty years -
In the 
circumstances, there is no intelligible differentia between the 
36 factories and the 10 factories taken over having any 
B rational relation with the object sought to be achieved and 
on this ground also s.6 of the Amendment Act deserves to 
be striJck down as violating Article 14 of the Constitution -
The cashew factories ~nd the land appurtenant thereto taken 
C over by the State under the Amending Act must be handed 
back - Constitution oflndia, 1950 - Arts. 14, 245 - Kera/a 
Cashew Factories Acquisition Act; 1974. 
Allowing the appeals, the.Court 
D 
HELD: 1. The legislature.cannot directly annul a .· 
judgment of a court. The legislative function consists in 
"making" 18w [see: Article 245) and not in "declaring" 
what the law shall be [see: Article 141]. Our Constitution 
permits a legislature to make laws retrospectively which 
E · may alter the law as it stood when a decision was arrived 
at It is in this limited circumstance that a legislature may 
alter the very basis of a decision given by a court, and if 
an appeal or other proceeding be pending, enable the . 
F Court to apply the law retrospectively so made which 
• would then change the verj basis of the earlier decision 
so that it would no longer hold good. However, if such is 
not the case then legislation whfoh trenches upon the . 
judicial power must necessarily be .declared to be 
G . unconstitutional. [Para12] [306-8, E-F] 
· 
StateofT.N. v. M. Rayappa Gounder(1971)3SCC1;. 
D. Cawasji and Co. Mysore v. The State of Mysore & 
Anr., 1985 (1) SCR.825; State of Haryana v. Kamal 
H 
Coop. Farrners'Society Ltd. (1993) 2 SCC 363: 1993 
S. T. SADIQ v. STATE OF KERALA & ORS. 
289 
(2) SCR 193; Re Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal, 
A 
1993 Supp (1) SCC 96; S.R. Bhagwat v. State of 
Mysore, (1995) 6 SCC 16:1995 (3) Suppl. SCR 545; 
Delhi Cloth & Genera/ Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of 
Rajasthan (1996) 2 sec 449: 1996 (1) SCR 518 -
relied on. 
B 
2. Section 6 is aimed only at directly upsetting a 
final judgment of a final court namely the Supreme Court 
of India. This is clear from two things - (1) the non-
.obstante clause wiping out "any judgment" and (2) the C 
reference to the schedule of the Amendment Act which 
contains only the 10 cashew factories that were ordered 
to be handed back by a final judgment of this Court 
dated 10.3.1995. It is clear, therefore, that Section 6 
directly sought to upset a final judgment inter-parties and D 
is bad on this count and is thus declared 
unconstitutional. A bare reading of the Statement of 
Objects of the Amendment Act shows that the Kerala 
Legislature wished to interfere with two judgments of E 
the Supreme Court making no distinction between 
factor
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.