THE STATE OF MANIPUR & ORS. versus SURJAKUMAR OKRAM & ORS.

Citation: [2022] 1 S.C.R. 1057 · Decided: 01-02-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L. NAGESWARA RAO · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 10 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1057
[2022] 1 S.C.R. 1057
1057
THE STATE OF MANIPUR & ORS.
v.
SURJAKUMAR OKRAM & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 823-827 of 2022)
FEBRUARY 01, 2022
[L. NAGESWARA RAO, B. R. GAVAI AND
B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Repeal: There is no question of repeal of a statute which has
been declared unconstitutional by the Court – In Bimolangshu Roy,
Assam Act, 2004 was struck down as unconstitutional – The 2012
Act was not the subject matter of consideration in Bimolangshu Roy
– Thus, it is well within the competence of the Manipur Legislature
to repeal the 2012 Act, which has not been adjudged as
unconstitutional by any Court till the Repealing Act, 2018 was
enacted – Manipur Parliamentary Secretary (Appointment, Salary
and Allowances and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2012 – Assam
Parliamentary Secretary (Appointment, Salary, Allowances and
Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2004.
Manipur Parliamentary Secretary (Appointment, Salary and
Allowances and Miscellaneous Provisions) Repealing Act, 2018:
Competence of Manipur Legislature to introduce a saving clause in
the Repealing Act, 2018 – Held: By means of the saving clause in
the Repealing Act, 2018, the Manipur Legislature could not have
infused life into a legislation, which was recognised by the
legislature itself as unconstitutional and thereby a nullity, prompting
its repeal – Thus, the Manipur Legislative cannot be said to have
the competence to enact the saving clause in the Repealing Act,
2018.
Repeal: Power of legislative body to repeal a law – Held:
The power of a legislative body to repeal a law is co-extensive with
its power to enact a law – The effect of repealing of a statute is to
obliterate it completely from the records of Parliament – While
repealing a statute, the Legislature is competent to introduce a
clause, saving any right, privilege, liability, penalty, act or deed
duly done and any investigation, legal proceeding or remedy arising
therefrom, under the repealed statute.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1058
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 1 S.C.R.
Repeal: Distinction between declaration of a statute as
unconstitutional by a Court of law and the repeal of a statute –
Held: There is a distinction between declaration of a statute as
unconstitutional by a Court of law and the repeal of a statute by the
Legislature – On declaration of a statute as unconstitutional, it
becomes void ab initio – Saving past transactions are within the
exclusive domain of the Court – On the other hand, though the
consequence of repeal is also obliteration of the statute with
retrospective effect on past transactions, the Legislature is empowered
to introduce a saving clause in the repealing act – Even in cases
where a saving clause is not made, the provisions of the General
Clauses Act are applicable to central statutes and the principles of
the General Clauses Act can be made applicable to statutes made
by the State Legislatures as well.
Legislation: An unconstitutional law, be it either due to lack
of legislative competence or in violation of fundamental rights
guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution of India, is voidab
initio – A statute which is made by a competent legislature is valid till
it is declared unconstitutional by a court of law – After declaration
of a statute as unconstitutional by a court of law, it is non est for all
purposes – In declaration of the law, the doctrine of prospective
overruling can be applied by this Court to save past transactions
under earlier decisions superseded or statutes held unconstitutional
– Relief can be moulded by this Court in exercise of its power under
Art.142 of the Constitution, notwithstanding the declaration of a
statute as unconstitutional – There is no question of repeal of a
statute which has been declared as unconstitutional by a Court –
Constitution of India – Art.142.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. Article 164(1) of the Constitution of India
provides that the Chief Minister shall be appointed by the
Governor and the other Ministers shall be appointed by the
Governor on the advice of the Chief Minister, and that the
Ministers shall hold office during the pleasure of the Governor.
Article 164(1-A) was inserted by the Constitution (Ninety-first
Amendment) Act, 2003. The said Article limited the number of
Ministers, including the Chief Minister, in the Council of
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1059
Ministers in a State to 15 percent of the total members in the
Legislative Assembly of the State. Article 194(3) of the
Constitution empowers th

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