G Mohan And Ors Vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Ors

Date of judgement
29/06/21

Judge
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.

Parties
Petitioner - G. MOHAN RAO & ORS
Respondent - STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS

Subject

Is it possible that the State legislature lacked the legislative authority to implement the 2019 Act, which is a retrospective validating act? Whether the State legislature overstepped its legislative authority by implementing the 2019 Act, which had the effect of nullifying/overruling the High Court's decision? Is it possible that the 1997 and 2001 Acts would be found in violation of Article 254 since they are incompatible with the 2013 Act due to the 2019 Act's retroactive commencement date?

Overview

• Tamil Nadu's legislative assembly passed the Tamil Nadu Harijan Welfare Schemes Act of 1978, the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act of 1997, and the Tamil Nadu Highways Act of 2001. It should be mentioned that, in addition to the 1894 Act, another statute established by Parliament, namely the National Highways Act of 1956, covered the field of land acquisition.
• Because there was a law passed by the Parliament in the same field concerning land acquisition, the State sought Presidential approval under Article 254 to avoid repugnancy, and the aforementioned State Acts, therefore, triumphed in the State.
• The High Court, in a judgement and order dated 03.07.2019, dismissed the complaint as to a violation of Article 14 and the President's failure to apply his mind when providing consent. However, on the issue of repugnancy, it was determined that the State enactments became repugnant to the 2013 Act, and thus void, on September 27, 2013. (date of Presidential assent to the 2013 Act).
• The High Court ruled that the State enactments could only be revived by the Legislative Assembly reliving them, followed by the President's fresh assent under Article 254 of the Constitution.
• The petitioners are landowners whose properties are being acquired under the 1997 and 2001 Acts. The petitioners' main argument is that the legislative tool used by the State legislature to revive unconstitutional enactments is a direct attempt to overrule and nullify the High Court's judgement, which is unconstitutional under the constitutional scheme because it violates the doctrine of separation of powers.
• The only option available to the State legislature after being deemed unconstitutional owing to repugnancy, it is said, was to reenact the repugnant enactments after eliminating the repugnant sections and pass it a new in the Assembly, followed by a new Presidential assent.

Legal provision

Article 254 of the Constitution - Inconsistency between laws made by Parliament and laws made by the Legislatures of States

Article 256 of the Constitution - Obligation of States and the Union

Judgement analysis

• The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed a slew of petitions contesting the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Laws (Revival of Operation, Amendment, and Validation) Act, 2019 (2019 Act), which sought to resurrect three state land acquisition laws that predated the 2013 Land Acquisition Act (2013 Act).
• In this case, the factum of power placed in the State legislature over the subject matter, as well as its competence to pass a validating law, is not in doubt. Using clause (2) of Article 254, it was then determined that Section 105A of the 2014 Act could not have revived State enactments that had been rendered void due to repugnancy at a previous point in time, and that the only way to revive a repugnant law is to re­enact it and receive fresh presidential assent.
• The petitioners have made a long case for why the 2019 Act is incompatible with the 2013 Act. We feel compelled to point out that pointing out any inconsistency once a validating Act has received the President's assent is pointless.
• The legislative intent behind the 2019 Act, and more specifically, the assent accorded thereto by the Governor and President of India for overcoming repugnancy with the Act made by the Parliament, was to revive the operation of the State enactments declared null and void because they were unconstitutional and repugnant to the Act made by the Parliament, and to amend and validate the same.
• The absence of compensation/rehabilitation/resettlement/infrastructure-related clauses is not even mentioned as a flaw in the State enactments in the High Court's decision. It makes no mention of the specific sections from state statutes that are incompatible with the bill passed by Parliament.
• The single flaw identified by the High Court was Section 105A's inadmissibility as a vehicle for restoring State enactments that had been deemed unconstitutional due to a statute passed by Parliament.
• Since then, the State has been instructed to accept the fault pointed out by the High Court and has moved on to designing a new legislative mechanism for confirming State enactments in accordance with Article 254 of the Constitution.
• The claim that the true repugnancy was not brought to the President's attention during the assent process, leaving the criteria of Article 254(2) unmet.
• There can be no general assent to all of the legislation passed by Parliament on the issue. The Court went on to state that judicial review of assent does not allow for an examination of whether the assent was delivered correctly, incorrectly, or erroneously.
• The goal of this action was to save and legitimise earlier acquisitions made under three state statutes that were legitimate until the 2013 Act took effect but were overturned due to the High Court ruling.
• This was also for changing the basis of the law in effect at the time and providing advantages comparable to those provided by the 2013 Act, to the extent that the wisdom of the State legislature permitted.
• The fact that the 2019 Act went into effect on September 26, 2013, a day before the 2013 Act, may appear odd, but it has no bearing on the legitimacy or substance of the 2013 Act.

Conclusion

In the context of the Seventh Schedule, the legislature's plenary jurisdiction extends not only to determine the substance of law but also to determine the form of legislation. To claim that a particular type of legislative activity is not permitted would necessitate a sufficient constitutional foundation, which the petitioners have not shown. The Constitution provides for the judicial assessment of legislative competence and the use of that competence to pass legislation that does not violate Part III or other constitutional obligations.