STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. versus BASANT NAHATA

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 07-09-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHAN · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

ST ATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. 
V. 
BASANT NAHATA 
SEPTEMBER 7, 2005 
[ASHOK BHAN AND S.B. SINHA. JJ.] 
Statute Law; 
Statute-Constitutionality of-Presumption of-Held, not an absolute 
rule. 
Delegated Legislation; 
Delegation-Held, cannot be wide, uncanalised or unguided-Essential 
legislative function can't be delegated 
Doctrines: 
Doctrine of Public policy-Not capable of being given a precise meaning-
Only the judiciary has the power, a limited one, to interpret it. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
The Respondent, a resident of town of Bikaner, was a Khatedar 
tenant of some agricultural lands appointed one Sukhdeo Singh as his E 
attorney authorizing him to look after his lands, cultivate the same and 
to do all other acts, deeds and things including mortgage or sell the same, 
get the requisite deeds and documents registered, by a deed of Power of 
Attorney dated 16.7.1999. The said deed was presented before the Sub-
Registrar, Bikaner on 30.7.1999 for the purpose of registration which was F 
refused by making an endorsement on the document that the same could 
not be registered in terms of the Government Notification dated 26.3.1999 
published in the Rajasthan Gazette dated 1.4.1999 as amended on 
22.4.1999 whereby and whereunder registration otsuch documents have 
been prohibited as being 'opposed to public policy'. The said notifications G 
were said to have been issued by the State of Rajasthan in exercise of its 
power conferred upon it under Section 22-A of the Act. The Respondent 
questioned the constitutionality of Section 22-A of the Act as inserted by 
the legislature of Rajasthan as also the aforementioned notifications by 
filing a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court. The Rajasthan High 
I 
H 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2005) SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A Court declared Section 22-A of the Act as inserted by the Rajasthan 
Amendment Act, 1976 being Act No. 16 of 1976 as unconstitutional and 
consequently the notifications were also quashed. 
In appeal before this court, the appellant contended that a 
presumption is attached in favour of a validity of a statute and it would 
B be for the person to establish who alleges violation of fundamental or other 
rights for impinging upon the constitutional validity. of Section 22-A of 
the Act. A legislation directing compulsory registration of a document 
and/or refusal to register the same being a matter of policy so as to enable 
the State to regulate registration of document or class of documents could 
C not be interfered by the High Court. The terminologies 'opposed the public 
policy' or 'public interest' carry precise meaning having regard to the 
provisions of Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, Section 7(l)(b)(ii) of 
Foreign Awards (Recognition and Enforcement) Act, 1961, and Section 
3(1) of U.P. (Temporary Control of Rent and Evictions) Act, 1947 and 
Section 34(2)(b)(ii) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and, thus, 
D cannot be said to be wholly arbitrary. In exercise of its power of judicial 
review the superior courts would not invalidate a statute only on the 
ground that guidelines have not been laid down by the legislature for 
making subordinate legislation or that the legislature has abdicated its 
essential legislative function in favour of executive but in a given case may 
E strike down only the notifications issued by the State if it be found to have 
exceeded its jurisdiction in that behalf. In any event as such guidelines 
can be found out either from the preamble or from other provisions of 
the Act; the same need not be.stated in the offending provision itself, This 
Court while hearing the matter having regard to the fact that similar 
amendments have been carried out by the other States and would have 
F wid~ repercussions directed issuance of notice to the State of Bihar, 
Gujarat, Karnataka, Maharashtra and Meghalaya. Pursuant to the said 
directions, the intervenor States including the States of Maharashtra, 
Gujarat, Jharkhand, Meghalaya, etc., appeared and made their 
submissions. 
G 
Dismissing the appeals, the court 
HELD: 1.1. There exists a presumption as regard constitutionality 
of a statute. Rule of presumption in favour of constitutionality, however, 
only shifts the burden of proof and rests it on the shoulders of the person 
H who attacks it. It is for that person to show that there has been a clear 
• 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. BASANTNAHATA 
3 
transgression of constitutional principles. But this rule is subject to the A 
limitat

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