Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

14. We have considered the decisions relied upon by the learned Government Advocate. In A.K. Roy v. Union of India and Anr., wherein while considering the power of issuance of ordinance is concerned, their Lordships, at paras 44, 45 and 46, held as follows:

"44. Both Dr. Ghatate and Shri Garg contend that despite the provisions of Section 1(2) of the 44th Amendment Act, Article 22 of the Constitution stood amended on April 30, 1979 when the 44th Amendment Act received the assent of the President and that there was nothing more that remained to be done by the executive. Section 1(2) which, according to them is misconceived and abortive must be ignored and severed from the rest of the Amendment Act and the rest of it deemed to have come into force on April 30, 1979".
"45. ........... At this juncture we will limit ourselves to a consideration of those arguments insofar as they bear upon the interpretation of Section 1(2) of the 44th Amendment Act, the consequences of the failure of the Central Government to issue a notification under that provision for bringing into force the provisions of Section 3 within a reasonable time and the question as to whether, despite the provision contained in Section 1(2), the 44th Amendment Act must be deemed to have come into force on the date on which the President gave his assent to it. The point last mentioned raises the question as to whether Section 1(2) of the 44th Amendment Act is severable from the rest of its provisions, if that section is bad for any reason".
"46. ............ That pre-condition is the issuance by the Central Government of a notification in the Official Gazette, appointing the date from which the Act or any particular provision thereof will come into force, with power to appoint different dated for different provisions. Thus, according to the very terms of the 44th Amendment, none of its provisions can come into force unless and until the Central Government issues a notification as contemplated by Section 1(2)".

In B.N. Nagarajan and Ors. v. State of Mysore and Ors., while considering Articles 309 and 162 of the Constitution, their Lordships, at para 5, observed as follows: