9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (12) TMI 32X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of section 3 of the Constitution (24th Amendment) Act, 1971, in the petition, he did not press these two contentions at the hearing of the petition. The petitioner was an assessee under the Income-tax Act and Wealth-tax Act during the assessment year 1976-77 and was liable to pay Income-tax and wealth-tax in accordance with the rates prescribed by the Finance Act, 1976, which was passed by the Lok Sabha during its extended period which was extended under the provisions of the House of the People (Extension of Duration) Act, 1976 (Act 30 of 1976), after the expiry of five years from the date appointed for its first meeting. The contention of the petitioner is that the duration of the House of the People could have been validly extended only when a Proclamation of Emergency was in force under the proviso to clause (2) of article 83 of the Constitution and since the two Proclamations of Emergency dated December 3, 1971, and June 25, 1975, were either ultra vires the Constitution or had ceased to be in operation by the time the House of the People (Extension of Duration) Act, 1976 (Act 30 of 1976), was passed by Parliament, the House of the People (Extension of Duration) Act, 1976 ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of is threatened, whether by war or external aggression or internal disturbance, he may, by Proclamation, make a declaration to that effect. (2) A Proclamation issued under clause (1) (a) may be revoked by a subsequent Proclamation; (b) shall be laid before each House of Parliament; (c) shall cease to operate at the expiration of two months unless before the expiration of that period, it has been approved by resolutions of both Houses of Parliament: Provided that if any such Proclamation is issued at a time when the House of the People has been dissolved or the dissolution of the House of the People takes place during the period of two months referred to in sub-clause (c), and if a resolution approving the Proclamation has been passed by the Council of States, but no resolution with respect to such Proclamation has been passed by the House of the People before the expiration of that period, the Proclamation shall cease to operate at the expiration of thirty days from the date on which the House of the People first sits after its reconstitution unless before the expiration of the said period of thirty days a resolution approving the Proclamation has been also passed by the H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itution by the President on the 3rd December, 1971. (See Lok Sabha Debates dated December 4, 1971, Column 4). After some discussion in the House, the resolution was carried unanimously and it was adopted (See Lok Sabha Debates dated December 4, 1971, column 37). Similarly, a resolution was adopted by the Rajya Sabha approving the said Proclamation of Emergency. (See Rajya Sabha Debates dated December 4, 1971, column 46). The said resolutions of the Houses of Parliament were no doubt not published in the Official Gazette. The above Proclamation of Emergency was revoked by the Vice-President acting as President on March 27, 1977, by a Proclamation which read thus: MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS NOTIFICATION New Delhi, the 27th March, 1977 G.S.R. 132(E).-The following Proclamation made by the Vice President acting as President of India is published for general information. Proclamation In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-clause (a) of clause (2) of article 352 of the Constitution, 1, Basappa Danappa Jatti, Vice-President acting as President of India, hereby revoke the Proclamation of Emergency issued under clause (1) of that article on the 3rd of December, 1971, and pub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... OF HOME AFFAIRS NOTIFICATION G.S.R. 117/E.-The following Proclamation made by the Vice President acting as President of India is published for general information : Proclamation In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-clause (a) of clause (2) of article 352 of the Constitution, I, Basappa Danappa Jatti, Vice-President acting as President of India, hereby revoke the Proclamation of Emergency issued under clause (1) of that article on the 25th June, 1975, and published with the notification of the Govt. of India in the Ministry of Home Affairs No. G.S.R. 353(B) dated the 26th June, 1975. Sd. B. D. Jatti, VICE-PRESIDENT ACTING AS PRESIDENT New Delhi, the 21 st March, 1977. Article 83(2) of the Constitution during the relevant time, that is, before the 42nd Amendment Act of 1976 read as follows: "83 ....... (2) The House of the People, unless sooner dissolved, shall continue for five years from the date appointed for its first meeting and no longer and the expiration of the said period of five years shall operate as a dissolution of the House: Provided that the said period may, while a Proclamation of Emergency is in operation, be extended by Parliament by l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Proclamations of Emergency raised justiciable issue, on the basis of the material placed before it, came to the conclusion that they had been duly issued. Chandrachud C.J. observed in the course of his judgment in Waman Rao's case [1981] 2 SCR 1, 45 AIR 1981 SC 271, 294 thus: " Thus, in the first place, we are not disposed to decide the question as to whether the issuance of a Proclamation of Emergency raises justiciable issue. Secondly, assuming it does, it is not possible in the present state of record to answer that issue one way or the other. And, lastly, whether there was justification for continuing the state of emergency after the cessation of hostilities with Pakistan is a matter on which we find ourselves ill-equipped. Coming to the two Acts of 1976 by which the life of the Lok Sabha was extended, section 2 of the first of these Acts, 30 of 1976, which was passed on February 16, 1976, provided that the period of five years in relation to the then House of the People shall be extended for a period of one year 'while the Proclamation of Emergency issued on the 3rd day of December, 1971, and on the 25th day of June, 1975, are both in operation '. The second Act of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issue thereof. The fact that the two Proclamations had been approved by the resolutions passed by both the Houses of Parliament as set out earlier in the course of this judgment is not disputed by the petitioner. What the petitioner, however, contended before the court was that the resolutions which were almost legislative in character and which had the effect of converting the federal State into almost an unitary State by conferring large powers on the Central Executive and Parliament as provided in article 353 and in some other provisions of the Constitution should have been given wide publicity so that people who were affected thereby could, if they did not feel satisfied about the need for continuing the state of emergency, either protest or make appropriate representation. The petitioner urged that the democratic nature of the Constitution which had been highlighted in its preamble required that wide publicity should be given to the resolutions of the two Houses of Parliament approving any Proclamation of Emergency and that the only means available for giving such publicity was the publication of resolutions in the Official Gazette in which the Proclamations of Emergency ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t any public notification issued under article 364(1) of the Constitution has to be published in the Official Gazette as provided by article 366(19) of the Constitution. A Proclamation of Emergency, being a very important event affecting public life, has also to be published in any manner known to the modern world and the publication in the Official Gazette is one such mode. We are of the view that if the Constitution requires that a particular mode of publication is necessary, then such mode must be followed, but if there is no mode of publication prescribed by the Constitution, then it must be considered that the Constitution has left the method of publication to the authority issuing the Proclamation in order to make it known to the members of the public. In the instant case, the Proclamations of Emergency have been published in the Official Gazette. The petitioner contended that even though it was not expressly provided that the resolutions passed by both the Houses of Parliament should be published in the Official Gazette, they should have been published for the very same reason which compelled the Government to publish the Proclamations in the Official Gazette. In the Const ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from membership on account of highly unbecoming conduct of members. In all these cases, any resolution passed by the concerned legislative body has far-reaching consequences. They are not required to be published in the Official Gazette, even though in some cases they are published, say, where a Central law is adopted under article 252 or a member is removed on the ground of privilege, etc. They would not be treated as ineffective merely because they are not published in the Official Gazette. They are all, however, published in the Reports of the Houses of Parliament and of the Houses of the State Legislature within a reasonable time. The petitioner relied on the decision of this court in Harla v. State of Rajasthan [1952] SCR I 10; AIR 1951 SC 467, in support of his contention. In that case, the facts were these. The Council of Ministers appointed by the Crown Representative for the government and administration of the Jaipur State passed a resolution in 1923 purporting to enact a law called the Jaipur Opium Act, but that law was neither promulgated or published in the Gazette nor made known to the public. The Jaipur Laws Act, 1923, which was also passed by the Council and which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... liament approving a Proclamation of Emergency should be given due publicity. We have already shown above that in the Lok Sabha Debates and in the Rajya Sabha Debates, the proceedings relating to the resolutions in question had been published in the usual course. Rule 379 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Lok Sabha provides for the publication of the full report of the Proceedings of the Lok Sabha. It reads thus : "379. The Secretary shall cause to be prepared a full report of the proceedings of the House at each of its sittings and shall, as soon as practicable, publish it in such form and manner as the Speaker may, from time to time, direct. Rule 382(1) of the said Rules provides for the printing and publication of Parliamentary papers. It reads thus: " 382. (1) The Speaker may authorise printing, publication, distribution or sale of any paper, document or report in connection with the business of the House or any paper, document or report laid on the Table or presented to the House or a Committee thereof. (2) A paper, document or report printed, published, distributed or sold in pursuance of sub-rule (1) shall be deemed to have been printed, publish ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... down the mode of proof of certain public documents. The relevant part of it reads thus : " 78. The following public documents may be proved as follows:-... (2) The proceedings of the Legislatures, by the journals of those bodies respectively, or by published Acts or abstracts, or by copies purporting to be printed by order of the Government concerned. " The Lok Sabha Debates and the Rajya Sabha Debates are the journals or the reports of the two Houses of Parliament which are printed and published by them. The court has to take judicial notice of the proceedings of both the Houses of Parliament and is expected to treat the proceedings of the two Houses of Parliament as proved on the production of the copies of the journals or the reports containing proceedings of the two Houses of Parliament which are published by them. In Niharendu Dutt Majumdar v. King Emperor [1942] FCR 38; AIR 1942 FC 22, the Federal Court of India was called upon to decide a question almost similar to the question which has arisen before us in this case. The facts of that case were these. Section 102 of the Government of India Act, 1935, authorised the Governor-General to issue a Proclamation of Emerg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 102 of the Government of India Act, 1935, had ceased to be in force at the expiration of six months as there was no proof of the fact that the said Proclamation of Emergency had been approved by the resolutions of both the Houses of the British Parliament as required by clause (c) of section 102 of the Government of India Act, 1935. Before the High Court, the relevant volumes of the " Parliamentary Debates " which contained the official reports of the debates in the Houses of the British Parliament had been produced and accepted by the High Court as proof that the British Parliament had passed the necessary resolutions. But the appellant contended that that proof was not adequate and that only copies of the official journals of the two Houses had to be produced. The Advocate-General of Bengal contended that the court was entitled and indeed ought to take judicial notice of the fact that the resolutions were passed and that in any event, the volumes of the Parliamentary Debates were all that was necessary in the way of legal proof. Gwyer C.J., while rejecting the above contention of the appellant, observed at pages 45-47 (at p. 24-25 of AIR 1942 FC) thus: "In our opinion, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case must fall within either the one category or the other... We have ascertained by inquiry from the Legislative Department of the Government of India that the Official Reports of the Council of States and of the Legislative Assembly, which follow very closely the form and manner of presentation of the Official Parliamentary Debates in England, are the only record of the proceedings of the two houses, no other record similar to that of the journals of the two Houses of Parliament in England being made. The proceedings of the Indian Legislature could clearly be proved by tendering in evidence copies of these Official Reports; and we can see no reason why the proceedings of Parliament cannot be proved by an exactly similar English publication, issued with a similar authority. Having regard to the view which we take on this point, we need not consider the other contention urged by the Advocate-General of Bengal, that the passing of the two Resolutions by Parliament was a matter of which the courts were entitled to take judicial notice." We have quoted in extenso the relevant part of the judgment in Niharendu Dutt Majumdar's case, AIR 1942 FC 22, with which we respectfully agree ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tions of Parliament and the Legislatures of the States. In ancient days, the King's soldiers and announcers had to go round the realm to give publicity to the royal Proclamations. The present day world is different from the ancient world. The publication in the Parliamentary Debates though after some short delay is adequate publication of the resolutions of Parliament as there is no rule which requires that the resolutions should be published in the Official Gazette. Hence, mere non-publication of the resolutions approving the Proclamations of Emergency in the Official Gazette did not make them ineffective. We are satisfied that the resolutions of the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha approving the two resolutions have been duly published in the official reports of the two Houses of Parliament. This ought to meet the contention of the petitioner that any public Act or resolution which affects public life should be given due publicity. We also hold that the production of the Lok Sabha Debates and of the Rajya Sabha Debates containing the proceedings of the two Houses of Parliament relating to the period between the time when the resolutions were moved in each of the two Houses of Parl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
