Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.84 seconds)
Dr. D.C. Wadhwa & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 20 December, 1986 cites

P. Vajravelu Mudaliar vs Special Deputy Collector, Madras & Anr on 5 October, 1964

So also in P. Vajravelu Mudaliar v. Special Deputy Collec- tor, Madras & Anr., [1965] 1 SCR 614 a Constitution Bench of this Court observed that when it is said that Legislation is a colourable one, what it means is that the Legislature has transgressed its legislative power in a covert or indirect manner, if it adopts a device to outstep the limits of its power. When the constitutional provision stipulates that an Ordinance promulgated by the Governor to meet an emergent situation shall cease to be in operation at the expiration of six weeks from the reassembly of the Legislature and the Government if it wishes the provisions of the Ordinance to be continued in force beyond the period of six weeks has to go before the Legislature_which is the constitutional au- thority entrusted with the law making function, it would most certainly be a colourable exercise of power for the Government to ignore the Legislature and to repromulgate the Ordinance and thus to continue to regulate the life and liberty of the citizens through Ordinance made by the Execu- tive. Such a strategem would be repugnant to the constitu- tional scheme as it would enable the Executive to transgress its constitutional limitation in the matter of law making in an emergent situation and to covertly and indirectly arro- gate to itself the law making function of the Legislature.
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 124 - Full Document

Lakshmidhar Misra vs Rangalal on 20 October, 1949

Shri Lal Narain Sinha, appearing on behalf of the State of Bihar urged that the Court is not entitled to examine wheth- er the conditions precedent for the exercise of the power of the Governor under Article 213 existed or not, for the purpose of determining the validity of an Ordinance and in support of this proposition, he strongly relied upon the decisions reported in Bhagat Singh & Ors. v. Empire, AIR 1931 PC 111, Rajararn Bahadur Kamlesh Narain Singh v. Com- missioner of Income Tax, AIR 1943 PC 818 153; Laxmidhar Misra v. Rangalal & Ors., AIR 1950 PC 59 and R.C. Cooper v. Union of India, [1970] 3 SCR 530. We do not see how these decisions could possibly help in the present case. They do not at all deal with the question which we are called upon to decide here. It is true that, according to the decisions of the Privy Council and this Court, the Court cannot examine the question of satisfaction of the Governor in issuing an Ordinance, but the question in the present case does not raise any controversy in regard to the satis- faction of the Governor. The only question is whether the Governor has power to repromulgate the same Ordinance suc- cessively without bringing it before the Legislature. That clearly the Governor cannot do. He cannot assume legislative function in excess of the strictly defined limits set out in the Constitution because otherwise he would be usurping a function which does not belong to him. It is significant to note that so far as the President of India is concerned, though he has the same power of issuing an Ordinance under Article 123 as the Governor has under Article 213, there is not a single instance in which the President has, since 1950 till today, repromulgated any Ordinance after its expiry. The startling facts which we have narrated above clearly show that the Executive in Bihar has almost taken over the' role of the Legislature in making laws, not for a limited period, but for years together in disregard of the constitu- tional limitations. This is clearly contrary to the consti- tutional scheme and it must be held to be improper and invalid. We hope and trust that such practice shall not be continued in the future and that whenever an Ordinance is made and the Government wishes to continue the provisions of the Ordinance in force after the assembling of the Legisla- ture, a Bill will be brought before the Legislature for enacting those provisions into an Act. There must not be Ordinance--Raj in the country.
Bombay High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 27 - Full Document

The Supreme Court Reportsk.C. Gajapati ... vs The State Of Orissa on 29 May, 1953

not do indirectly what it is not permitted to do directly. If there is a constitutional provision inhibiting the con- stitutional authority from doing an Act, such provision cannot be allowed to be defeated by adoption of any subter- fuge. That would be clearly a fraud on the constitutional provision. This is precisely what was pointed out by Muk- harji, J. speaking for the Court in K.C. Gajapati Narayan Deo & Ors. v. State of Orissa, [1954] 1 SCR 1:
Supreme Court of India Cites 41 - Cited by 88 - B K Mukherjea - Full Document
1