SARDAR INDER SINGH versus THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Citation: [1957] 1 S.C.R. 605 · Decided: 08-02-1957 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUDHI RANJAN DAS · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
605 
SARDAR INDER SINGH 
v. 
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
(and connected petitions) 
(S. R. 
DAS C.J., V ENKATARAMA 
AYYAR, B. P. SINHA, 
S. K. DAs and GA.JENDRAC;ADKAR JJ.) 
C01.stit11tio11a! la/IJ-Delegated legislation and conditional legis-
lation-Distinction-Statute co11fe1"1'ing power 
0•1 
outside authority 
to extend its operatio11-Validity-Rajastha11 (Protection of Tenants) 
Ordinance, 1949, 
(Rajasthan 
Ordi11a11ce No. IX of 1949), SS. 
3, 
4, 
7(1) 
15-Notifications 
by 
R.ajpramukh-Validity-Whether 
Ordini!nce contravwes Aus. 14 ,;11d 19( 7)(/) of the Constitution of 
India. 
By s. 3(1) of the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance, 
1949, which was 
promulgated on 
June 
21, 1949, by the Raj-
pramukh of Rajasthan, it was provided : "It shall 
come into force 
at once, and shall remain in force for a period of two years unless 
this period is further extended 
by the 
Rajprnmukh by 
notifi-
cation in the Rajasthan Gazette." 
In exercise of the power conferred by this section the Raj-
pramukh issued a 
nctification on June 14, 1951, 
providing that 
the above Ordinance "shall 
remain 
in force for a further period 
of two years with effect from June 21, 1951'', and on June 20, 
1953, he issued a iurther notification 
providing that the said 
Ordinance "shall r•':main in force for a term of one vear with 
effect from 
June 21, 
1953'". 
Doubts having been raised 
as to 
the validity of the notification <lated June 20, 1953, 
the 
Raj-
prarnukh issued 
anothe~ 
Ordinance 
0~1 February 15, 1954, subs-
tituting for s. 3 of the original 
Ordinance dated June 21, 1949, the: 
following : "It shall come into force at once and shall remain in 
force for a period of fiye years"'. 
It was contended inter alia for 
the petitioners that the Ordinance dated June 21, 1949, and the 
notifications issued by 
the 
Rajpramukh 
were invalid on the 
grounds ( l) that s. 3 of the 
Ordinance was ultra viru as the power 
which it conferred '-Oil the !bipr'1mukh to extend the period fixed 
therein \vas an unconstituti011:1i delcg;.Hion 
of 
legislative 
po\ver, 
(2) that. the notification dated June 20, 1953, was bad because the 
Legislature of 
Rajasthan had been constituted on 
March 
29, 
1952, and the authority of the 
Rajpr~mnkh to legislate conferred 
by Art. 385 of the Constitution of India had, on that date, conl<: 
to an end and (3) that the 
Ordinance rnntraYcned Arts. 14 and 
19(1) (f) of the Constitution. 
Held: (1) Section 3 of the Or<lina1m: in so far as it autho-
rised the 
Rajpramukh to extend the life of the Ordinance fell 
within the category of conditional legislation and is intra t•ires. 
1957 
February 8. 
1957 
-Sardar lnder Singh 
v. 
The State of 
Rqjasthan 
606 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[19571 
A provision in a statute conferring a po\ver on an outside 
authority to bring it into force at such tin1e as it might. in its 
O\VJ1 discretion, deter91ine, is conditional an<l 
not delegattd legis-
lation and is valid, and it can make no difference in the character 
of a legislation as a con<litional one that the legislature, after it-
self enacting the hnv and fixing, on a consi<lcration of the iacrs as 
they might have then 
existed, the period 
of its duration, confers 
a pov.·er on an outsi<le authority to extend its operation 
for 
a 
further period if it is satisfied that 
the state of facts \vhich called 
forth the lcgisbtion continues to subsist. 
Queen v. l!urah. (1878) 5 I.A. 178, rclie<l on. 
l:i re '[he /)clhi 
Latvs 
/let, 1912, ( 1Sl'51) 
S.C.R. 7~7 anJ 
State of 
nonihay v. 1Varotharnda.• /ethabai, 
(1951) 
S.C.R. 
51, 
referred to. 
fatind1·a Nath Guptn v. 
595, in so far as it decided 
cnact1ncnt cannot validly be 
dissented frotn. 
The State of Bihar. (1949) I'. C. R. 
th~tl a po"ver to e:-:tend the lilc of an 
coni"r.::rrc<l 
on an outside 
authority, 
(2) 1"hc Rajpratnukh issued the 
notification 
tLJ.tcd 
June 20, 
1953, in his character as the autl1urity on \Vho1n po\ver \Vas con-
ferred under 
s. 3 
of 
the ()rdinanct and not as the legisl:Htve 
authority 
of the 
State 
and 
accordingly the 
notification 
is 
\'::ilid. 
' 
( 3) The Ordin:.ince cannot be held to be bad under , \rt. J 4 of 
the Constitution on the ground that s. I 5 of the Ordinance \vhich 
authorises the 
(;overn1ncnt to exeinpt any person or class 
of 
persons froin the operation of the OrJinancc do~s not lay do\\·n 
the principles on 
vvhich excn1ption could be granted leaving the 
matter to the

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