Supreme Court Upholds Repeal of Manipur Act but Strikes Down Saving Clause: State of Manipur vs. Surjakumar Okram (2022)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 1 February 2022
Citation: Civil Appeal Nos. 823-827 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.2001-2005 of 2021)
Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J., B.R. Gavai, J., and B.V. Nagarathna, J.

Can a state legislature validate actions taken under a law that is similar to one already declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, by including a saving clause in the repealing act? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning the Manipur Parliamentary Secretary Act, 2012. The core issue was whether the Manipur legislature had the power to enact the 2012 Act and subsequently, to include a saving clause in the repealing act of 2018, which aimed to protect actions taken under the repealed law. The Supreme Court, in this judgment, upheld the repeal of the Act, but struck down the saving clause.

Case Background

The Manipur Parliamentary Secretary (Appointment, Salary and Allowances and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2012 (the “2012 Act”) was enacted to provide for the appointment of Parliamentary Secretaries. This Act allowed the Chief Minister to appoint members of the Manipur Legislative Assembly as Parliamentary Secretaries, granting them the rank and status of a Minister of State.

In 2017, several individuals were appointed as Parliamentary Secretaries under the 2012 Act. However, the Assam Parliamentary Secretaries Act, 2004, which had similar provisions, was challenged in the Gauhati High Court and subsequently transferred to the Supreme Court. On 26 July 2017, the Supreme Court in Bimolangshu Roy v. State of Assam & Anr. [(2018) 14 SCC 408], declared that the Assam Legislature lacked the competence to enact the Assam Act of 2004.

Following the Supreme Court’s judgment in Bimolangshu Roy, the Manipur Assembly passed the Manipur Parliamentary Secretary (Appointment, Salary and Allowances and Miscellaneous Provisions) Repealing Act, 2018 (the “Repealing Act, 2018”) on 4 April 2018. The Repealing Act included a saving clause that aimed to protect actions taken under the 2012 Act.

Meanwhile, some of the Appellants who were appointed as Parliamentary Secretaries resigned from their posts. Public Interest Litigations (PILs) were filed in the High Court of Manipur challenging the validity of the 2012 Act. Subsequently, the validity of the Repealing Act, 2018 was also challenged. The High Court of Manipur, in its judgment dated 17 September 2020, declared both the 2012 Act and the Repealing Act, 2018 as unconstitutional. Aggrieved by this decision, the State of Manipur and the former Parliamentary Secretaries filed appeals in the Supreme Court.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Manipur addressed the Public Interest Litigations (PILs) challenging the 2012 Act and the Writ Petition challenging the Repealing Act, 2018 together. The petitioners argued that the Manipur Legislature lacked the competence to enact the 2012 Act, and that the saving clause in the Repealing Act was a way to justify illegal appointments.

The High Court held that the power to repeal a law is co-extensive with the power to enact it. Since the High Court believed that the Manipur Legislature lacked the competence to enact the 2012 Act, it concluded that the legislature also lacked the power to repeal it with a saving clause. Consequently, the High Court declared both the 2012 Act and the Repealing Act, 2018 as unconstitutional.

Legal Framework

Several articles of the Constitution of India are relevant to this case:

• Article 164(1): States that the Chief Minister is appointed by the Governor, and other Ministers are appointed by the Governor on the advice of the Chief Minister. Ministers hold office during the pleasure of the Governor.
• Article 164(1-A): Limits the number of Ministers in a State Council of Ministers, including the Chief Minister, to 15% of the total members of the Legislative Assembly.
• Article 194(3): Empowers the State Legislature to make laws regarding the powers, privileges, and immunities of the House of the Legislature, its members, and committees.
• Article 246: Confers exclusive powers to the State Legislature to make laws for the State on matters listed in List II of the Seventh Schedule.

The relevant entries in List II of the Seventh Schedule are:

• Entry 39: “Powers, privileges and immunities of the Legislative Assembly and of the members and the committees thereof, and if there is a Legislative Council, of that Council and of the members and the committees thereof; enforcement of attendance of persons for giving evidence or producing documents before committees of the Legislature of the State.”
• Entry 40: “Salaries and allowances of Minister for the State.”

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, representing the Appellants, argued that the resignation of the Parliamentary Secretaries made the PILs before the High Court infructuous.
• He contended that the Supreme Court’s decision in Bimolangshu Roy was incorrect and should be considered per incuriam for not considering entry 40 of List II.
• Dr. Dhawan argued that the striking down of the Repealing Act, 2018 should not invalidate the decisions made by the Parliamentary Secretaries.
• He argued that the Repealing Act, 2018 should be upheld due to the express saving provision, the de facto doctrine, and the principles of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• Mr. Narender Hooda, representing the Respondents, argued that the Supreme Court’s decision in Bimolangshu Roy was correct.
• He submitted that the State of Manipur followed the judgment in Bimolangshu Roy by repealing the 2012 Act and discontinuing the appointments of Parliamentary Secretaries.
• Mr. Hooda argued that the saving clause was inserted to justify illegal appointments and was not valid, especially after the State Government accepted the judgment in Bimolangshu Roy.
• He contended that entry 40 of List II relates to salaries and allowances of Ministers and cannot be used to defend the Assam Act, 2004.

Summary of Arguments

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the judgment in Bimolangshu Roy v. State of Assam & Anr. [(2018) 14 SCC 408] needs reconsideration.
2. Whether the Manipur Legislature was competent to enact the Repealing Act, 2018.
3. Whether the saving clause in the Repealing Act, 2018 is valid.
4. What is the fate of the acts, deeds, etc., undertaken by the Parliamentary Secretaries appointed under the 2012 Act?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court affirmed its decision in Bimolangshu Roy v. State of Assam & Anr. [(2018) 14 SCC 408], holding that the State Legislature lacked the competence to create the post of Parliamentary Secretary.
• The Court distinguished Ujagar Prints & Ors. (II) v. Union of India & Ors. [(1989) 3 SCC 488], stating that while multiple entries can be used to support legislation, the State of Assam did not rely on any other entry apart from entry 39 in Bimolangshu Roy.
• The Court followed Kay v. Goodwin [(1830) 6 Bing. 576] and State of U.P. & Ors. v. Hirendra Pal Singh & Ors. [(2011) 5 SCC 305], which established that a repealed statute is obliterated as if it never existed.
• The Court referred to Gokaraju Rangaraju v. State of Andhra Pradesh [(1981) 3 SCC 132], State of Punjab v. Harnek Singh [(2002) 3 SCC 481], and Election Commission of India & Anr. v. Dr. Subramaniam Swamy & Anr. [(1996) 4 SCC 104] regarding the de facto doctrine and saving provisions, but did not apply the de facto doctrine due to the relief provided under Article 142.
• The Court followed Norton v. Shelby County [118 US 425 (1886)], which held that an unconstitutional act is not law.
• The Court followed Behram Khurshid Pesikaka v. State of Bombay [(1955) 1 SCR 613] and Deep Chand v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. [1959 Supp (2) SCR 8], which established that an unconstitutional law is void ab initio.
• The Court followed Keshavan Madhava Menon v. State of Bombay [1951 SCR 228], which highlighted the distinction between the declaration of a statute as unconstitutional and the repeal of a statute by the Legislature.
• The Court followed I.C. Golak Nath & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr. [(1967) 2 SCR 762], India Cement Ltd. & Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. [(1990) 1 SCC 12], Orissa Cement Ltd. v. State of Orissa & Ors. [1991 Supp (1) SCC 430], Indra Sawhney & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. [1992 Supp (3) SCC 217], and Ashok Kumar Gupta & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors. [(1997) 5 SCC 201], which discussed the doctrine of prospective overruling and the powers under Article 142.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle that a legislature cannot validate actions taken under a law that is similar to one already declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. The Court emphasized the importance of upholding the rule of law and ensuring that legislative actions are consistent with constitutional principles. The Court recognized that the Manipur Legislature repealed the 2012 Act in light of the judgment in Bimolangshu Roy and the pending public interest litigations. However, the Court held that the saving clause was an attempt to validate the illegal appointments made under the 2012 Act.

The Court also took into consideration the need to protect the public from the disruption that would be caused by nullifying all the actions taken by the Parliamentary Secretaries. Therefore, the Court exercised its powers under Article 142 to save the acts, deeds, and decisions undertaken by the Parliamentary Secretaries during their tenure.

The following table demonstrates the ranking of the sentiment analysis of the reasons given by the Supreme Court:

Fact:Law Ratio

The following table shows the ratio of fact:law percentage that influenced the court to decide:

Logical Reasoning

Issue 1: Reconsideration of Bimolangshu Roy

Issue 2: Competence to Enact Repealing Act, 2018

Issue 3: Validity of Saving Clause

Issue 4: Fate of Acts by Parliamentary Secretaries

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in State of Manipur vs. Surjakumar Okram (2022) provides important insights into the legislative competence of state legislatures and the limitations of saving clauses in repealing acts. The Court upheld the repeal of the Manipur Parliamentary Secretary Act, 2012, but struck down the saving clause, emphasizing that a legislature cannot validate actions taken under a law that is similar to one already declared unconstitutional. The Court, however, saved the actions of the Parliamentary Secretaries under Article 142 to prevent disruption of public business.

The judgment reinforces the principle that the legislative power of a state is not absolute and must be exercised within the constitutional framework. It also clarifies that saving clauses cannot be used to validate actions taken under a law that is deemed unconstitutional. This ruling serves as a reminder that legislative actions must always be consistent with the Constitution and the rule of law.