Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

SUBMISSIONS OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT 11 The learned Advocate General representing the State submitted that the said Regulations have been framed as a part of legislative function and the said Regulations is nothing but a subordinate legislation. He urged that the limitations on the power of the Writ Court to interfere while dealing with a challenge to a validity of legislation are well known and interference can be made by the Writ Court on only two grounds (i) lack of legislative competence and/or (ii) the legislations being made in contravention of the provisions of the Constitution of India. He placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the Case of Hinsa Virodhak Sangh V/s. Mirzapur Moti Kuresh Jamat and Others1. He relied upon what is held by the Apex Court in the well known decision in the case of Government of Andhra Pradhesh and Others Vs. P. Laxmi Devi2. He submitted that as held by the Apex Court in paragraph 80 of the said decision, this 1 (2008) 5 SCC 33 2 (2008) 4 SCC 720 ssp 18/40 pil-l-133-13j.doc Court will have to observe a judicial restraint, as the legislation impugned is in a sense an economic legislation and, therefore, greater latitude must be given to the legislature.

submissions. As far as the scope of interference is concerned, a reference will have to made to the decision of the Apex Court in case of Hinsa Virodhak Sangh Vs. Mirzapur Moti Kuresh Jaman (supra). In paragraph-39 the Apex Court has held thus:

"We have recently held in Govt. of A.P. v. P. Laxmi Devi, that the court should exercise judicial restraint while judging the constitutional validity of statutes. In our opinion, the same principle also applies when judging the constitutional validity of delegated legislation and here also there should be judicial restraint.

(xiii) However, we find no paradox at all. As regards economic and other regulatory legislation judicial restraint must be observed by the court and greater latitude must be given to the legislature while adjudging the constitutionality of the statute because the court does not consist of economic or administrative experts. It has no expertise in these matters, and in this age of specialisation when policies have to be laid down with great care after consulting the specialists in the field, it will be wholly unwise for the court to encroach into the domain of the executive or legislative (sic legislature) and try to enforce its own views and perceptions."