Khushi Dosh-
Published On: February 02, 2022 at 13:08 IST
In Surjakumar Okram vs. State of Manipur, Supreme Court Bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao, BR Gavai, and BV Nagarathna ruled that repealing a statute that has been declared unconstitutional by a court obviates it entirely, as if it had never been enacted.
“There is no question of repeal of a statute which has been declared as unconstitutional by a Court…Where a statute is adjudged to be unconstitutional, it is as if it had never been. Rights cannot be built up under it,” the Bench stated.
Supreme Court, in Bimolangshu Roy v. State of Assam & Anr., invalidated the Assam Parliamentary Secretaries (Appointment, Salaries, Allowances, and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2004. Following that, in 2018, the Manipur Assembly passed the 2018 Repealing Act to repeal the State’s 2012 legislation, which was like the 2004 Assam Act.
The State of Manipur included a saving provision in the 2018 Repealing Act that protected all decisions made under the 2012 Act as well as any right, privilege, or obligation incurred under the 2012 Act. In 2017, some PILs were filed in the High Court challenging the 2012 Act. Later that year, a petition was also filed to challenge the repealing Act of 2018.
the High Court determined that the State could not have included a saving Clause in the Repealing Act to justify acts performed and Rights, privileges, and obligations incurred under the 2012 Act. As a result, it invalidated both the 2012 and 2018 Acts.
The Supreme Court noted that because the 2012 Act had already been repealed by the 2018 Act, the High Court could not have analysed and concluded on the Constitutional validity of the 2012 Act.
“To that extent, the High Court committed an error in declaring a non-existing law as unconstitutional,” the top court ruled.
The Court ruled that the Manipur legislature was competent to pass the Repealing Act of 2018. It overturned the Act’s saving clause on the grounds that the Manipur Legislature could not have given life to legislation (the 2012 Act) that was recognised by the legislature itself as unconstitutional and thus void, prompting its repeal.
Invoking its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Court preserved the actions and decisions of the parliamentary secretaries under the 2012 Act, recognising that nullification of such transactions could cause serious harm to third parties and significant confusion and irregularity in the conduct of public business.
