Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

14 In such circumstances referred to above, it is prayed that the impugned (Amendment) Act, 2019 be held to be ultra vires the provisions of the Constitution of India, the provisions of the Act, 1961 and the Rules, 1982.

15 In support of the aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on the following case law:

Sr.                Party name                             Citation
No.
  1   Rajkot District Cooperative Bank Ltd           AIR 2015 SC 489
      vs. State of Gujarat
  2   Amreli District Cooperative Sale and         1984 (2) GLR 1244
      Purchase Union Ltd vs. State of Gujarat
  3   Rajendra N. Shah vs. Union of India           2013(2) GLR 1698
      and another





  C/SCA/5301/2020                                 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 27/08/2021



  4   Andhra Pradesh Dairy Development             2011 (9) SCC 286
      Corporation   Federation   vs. B.
      Narasimha Reddy and others
  5   Union of India and others vs. N. S.          2015(10) SCC 681
      Rathnam and Sons
  6   State of Uttar Pradesh and others vs.       2007 (10) SCC 342
      Deepak Fertilizers & Petrochemical
      Corporation Ltd.
  7   State of Gujarat and another vs. Shri        1974 (4) SCC 656
      Ambica Mills Ltd., Ahmedabad and
      another
  8   Hiral P. Harsora and others vs. Kusum        2016(10) SCC 165
      Narottamdas Harsora and others
  9   Subramanian Swamy vs. Director,               2014(8) SCC 682
      Central Bureau of Investigation and
      another
 10 Sharma Transport vs. Government of              2002(2) SCC 188
    A.P. and others


     SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT:
16    Mr. Kamal Trivedi, the learned Advocate General assisted by Mr.

84 The Supreme Court in Subramanian Swamy's case (supra) had observed in paras 49, 58, 68 and 70 as under:

C/SCA/5301/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 27/08/2021 "49. Where there is challenge to the constitutional validity of a law enacted by the legislature, the Court must keep in view that there is always a presumption of constitutionality of an enactment, and a clear transgression of constitutional principles must be shown. The fundamental nature and importance of the legislative process needs to be recognized by the Court and due regard and deference must be accorded to the legislative process. Where the legislation is sought to be challenged as being unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, the Court must remind itself to the principles relating to the applicability of Article 14 in relation to invalidation of legislation.

96. Another Constitution Bench decision in Subramanian Swamy v. CBI [Subramanian Swamy v. CBI, (2014) 8 SCC 682 : (2014) 6 SCC (Cri) 42 : (2014) 3 SCC (L&S) 36] dealt with a challenge to Section 6-A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946. This section was C/SCA/5301/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 27/08/2021 ultimately struck down as being discriminatory and hence violative of Article 14. A specific reference had been made to the Constitution Bench by the reference order in Subramanian Swamy v. CBI [Subramanian Swamy v. CBI, (2005) 2 SCC 317 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 241] and after referring to several judgments including Ajay Hasia [Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi, (1981) 1 SCC 722 : 1981 SCC (L&S) 258], Mardia Chemicals [Mardia Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India, (2004) 4 SCC 311], Malpe Vishwanath Acharya [Malpe Vishwanath Acharya v. State of Maharashtra, (1998) 2 SCC 1] and McDowell [State of A.P. v. McDowell and Co., (1996) 3 SCC 709], the reference, inter alia, was as to whether arbitrariness and unreasonableness, being facets of Article 14, are or are not available as grounds to invalidate a legislation.

97. After referring to the submissions of the counsel, and several judgments on the discrimination aspect of Article 14, this Court held:

(Subramanian Swamy case [Subramanian Swamy v. CBI, (2014) 8 SCC 682 : (2014) 6 SCC (Cri) 42 : (2014) 3 SCC (L&S) 36] , SCC pp. 721-

22, paras 48-49) ―arbitrary

48. In E.P. Royappa [E.P. Royappa v. State of T.N., (1974) 4 SCC 3 : 1974 SCC (L&S) 165] , it has been held by this Court that the basic principle which informs both Articles 14 and 16 are equality and inhibition against discrimination. This Court observed in para 85 as under: (SCC p. 38)