Holding

The Indian Council of World Affairs Act, 2001 is constitutionally valid, being within Parliament's legislative competence and not violating Articles 14, 19 or 300A, and the doctrine of separation of powers does not invalidate it.

Summary

The petitioners challenged the Indian Council of World Affairs Act, 2001, alleging that it violated Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(c) and 300A of the Constitution by taking over the assets of the Indian Council of World Affairs Society and by being enacted in defiance of a prior High Court judgment that had struck down a similar ordinance. The Court examined whether Parliament had legislative competence under Article 245 read with entries 62 and 63 of List I, whether the Act imposed unreasonable restrictions on the freedoms of speech, expression and association, whether it amounted to arbitrary classification, and whether the doctrine of separation of powers barred re‑enactment of provisions previously held unconstitutional. It held that the Act is within Parliament's competence, does not infringe the cited fundamental rights, is not arbitrary, and that motives or prior judgments are irrelevant to its validity. Consequently, the Act was upheld and both writ petitions were dismissed.

Issues considered

The legislative competence of Parliament to enact the Indian Council of World Affairs Act, 2001 under Article 245 and entries 62 and 63 of List I.
Whether the Act violates Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(c) and the permissible restrictions under Articles 19(4) and 19(6).
Whether the Act is violative of Article 14 on the ground of arbitrary classification.
Whether the Act infringes Article 300A (right to property).
Whether the doctrine of separation of powers precludes Parliament from re‑enacting provisions of an ordinance previously declared unconstitutional.
Whether alleged malafides or political motives affect the constitutional validity of the Act.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 13, s. Article 14, s. Article 19(1)(a), s. Article 19(1)(c), s. Article 19(4), s. Article 19(6), s. Article 245, s. Article 246, s. Article 300A
Societies Registration Act, 1860

Subjects

constitutional validitylegislative competenceArticle 19Article 14Article 300Aseparation of powerscolourable legislationinstitution of national importancesocietyproperty rightsmismanagement

Judgment

/

DHARAM DUTT AND ORS. A
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

NOVEMBER 24, 2003

[R.C. LAHOTI AND BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ.] B

Indian Council of World Affairs Act, 2001-Constitutional validity
of-Held: Act not violative of Articles 14, 19(l)(c) and (a)-Parliament
had legislative competence to pass the Act in exercise of powers under
Article 245 read with entries 62 and 63 of List I of Seventh Schedule- C
There is no violation of doctrine of separation ofpowers-A/so legislation
not vitiated by the malafides-Hence, Act constitutionally valid-Constitution
of India, 1950-Articles 14, 19(l(c), 19(l)(a), 245, 246 and List I Seventh
Schedule, Entries 62 and 63.

Constitution of India, 1950 : D

Article 19-Fundamental rights under-Conferred only on citizens of
India-Rights do not stand on common pedestal but have varying dimensions
and underlying philosophies-Nature ofreasonable restrictions imposed-
Discussed. E
Article 19-Constitutional validity of Legislative enactment-Held:
Test of reasonableness is to be satisfied-Also substance of the legislation
is to be kept in view-Further, in a challenge laid to the constitutional
validity the onus of proof is· on going shifting process.
F
Article 19(l)(c)-Right to form associations or unions-Does not
carry with it fulfillment of every object of an association for which it was
formed-It would be contrary to the scheme of rights guaranteed by part
lJ1 and those conferred by Article 19(l)(a) to (g)-However, rights flowing
from the fundamental rights are sought to be included and qualifications G
are not merely those in Article 19(4)-Further right to form an association·
is tested by reference to Article 19(l)(c), validity" of restriction by Article
19(4), and one~ individual citizens form an association and carry on
activity, validity ofrestriction is tested by reference to Article 19(J)(g) read
~A~kl~ H
151
152 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.
A Articles 245 and 246-Seventh Schedule, List I-Entries 62 and 63-
Indian Council of World Affairs-Institution of national importance-
Hence, enactment protected by Entries 62 and 63 of List I of Seventh
Schedule-Indian_ Council of World Affairs Act, 2001.

B Articles 245 01:id 246-Doctrine of Colourable Legislation-Scope
of-Held : Deals with the question of legislative competence to enact a
law-Iflegislature is competent the motives, bonafides or malafides are not
relevant.

Articles 245, 246, 13, 50 and 226-Indian Council of World Affairs
C Act, 2001-Act incorporating same provisions as contained in Ordinance
declared invalid by High Court--Effect of the judgment of High Court on
the legislation-Held : Judgment of High Court being rendered erroneous,
overrulling of which is specifically recorded, the constitutional validity of
subsequent legislation is not to be decided on basis ofthe judgment ofHigh
D Court-Further before error could be corrected in appeal, Ordinance
lapsed rendering appeal inji-uctuous-Also by the impugned Act Parliament
not overruling the judgment of High Court nor declaring the same law to
be valid which was pronounced to be void by the Court-Hence, Act not
violative of doctrine of separation of powers.
E
In 1943, an organisation named India Council of World Affairs
was formed. The Association was registered as a society. The principal
object of the Society was to promote the study oflndian and international
questions so as to develop a body of informed opinion on world affairs
F and Indian relation thereto through study, research, discussion, lectures,
exchange of ideas and information etc., with other bodies in India and
abroad engaged in similar activities. The Government of India gave
land on lease to the society. The Society was housed in a building
constructed on the land. It had a library, an auditorium, conference
room and other office accommodation. The Society was receiving
G grants from the Government from 1974 until 1987, whereafter it was
discontinued. There was serious mal-administration and
mismanagement comntitted by the society. On 30.6.1990, the President
of India promulgated an Ordinance whereby a statutory body known
as the Indian Council of World Affairs was constituted, having
H perpetual succession and a common seal, with power to hold and
DHARAM OUIT v. U.O.I. 153

dispose of both movable and immovable properties. The constitutional A ··
validity of the Ordinance was challenged. Single Judge of High Court
held the Ordinance as ultra vires the Constitution, violating Articles 14,
19(1)(a) and l 9(1)(c) thereof and also beyond the legislative competence
of Parliament. Union of India filed a letters patent appeal against the
judgment. As the Bill seeking to replace the Ordinance by an Act of B
Parliament could not be passed, the Ordinance lapsed. Division Bench
held that the appeal had become infructuous and dismissed the same.
The President promulgated Ordinance No. 3 of 2000, on similar and
identical terms of the 1990 Ordinance. However, the Ordinance lapsed.
Ordinance No. 1 of 2001 was then promulgated seeking to revive C
Ordinance No. 3 of 2000, however, this Ordinance also lapsed.
Thereafter, Indian Council of World Affairs Ordinance No. 3 of 2001
was promulgated. Writ petition (C) No. 276 of2001 was filed challenging
the constitutional validity of the Ordinance, 2001. During pendency of
this petition, Ordinance came to be replaced by an Act of Parliament- D
Indian Council of World Affairs Act, 2001. Writ petition (C) No. 543
of 2001 was filed challenging the constitutional validity of the Act.

Writ petitioners contended that by promulgating the impugned
Ordinance and by enacting the impugned Act, the Central Government
has taken over the Society as also its movable and immovable properties . E
resulting in violation of petitioners' right to freedom of speech and
expression and to form associations or unions as conferred on citizens
by Article 19(l)(a) and (c); that !~e provisions of the Societies
Registration Act, 1860 were effective enough which, if invoked, could
have taken care of the alleged grievances; that by passing the iegislation, F
ICWA institution was singled out though there were several other
institutions run by societies or other organizations which committed
more serious mismanagement and mat-administration; that the
impugned Act is violative of Article 300A as it deprives the petitioners
of the property vesting in the society; that the impugned Ordinance G
and the Act are malicious being motivated by political considerations;
that the identically worded Ordinance having held to be unconstitutional
and the judgment of High Court holding so having achieved a f!.nality,
th~ Parliament could not have re-enacted the contents of the vitiated
Ordinance into an Act; and that the impugned Ordinance and the Act H

1
154 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A are violative of the doctrine of Separation of Powers.
Respondent-Union oflndia contended that the earl,ier Ordinances
have mere academic relevance in view of the Parliament having
ultimately enacted the Act; that as the India Council of World Affairs
B is an institution of national importance, the impugned enactment is
protected by Entries 62 and 63 of List I of the Seventh Schedule; that
the Society has not been touched, it continues to survive as before and,
therefore,Jhere is no violation offun~amental right within the meaning
of Article 19(l)(a) and (c); that the building and the library having
C built out of Government funds, subventions and some donations, the
Society does not have any right in any of the properties; that the
impugned Ordinance and Legislaiion were not politically motivated;
'
that the decision of the Single Judge of High Court with respect to the
identically worded Ordinance was incorrect; and that appeal filed was
disposed of without any adjudication on merits since the High Court
D held that the appeal was rendered academic in view of the Ordinanc,e
having lapsed.

Disposing of W.P. (C) No. 276 of 2001 and dismissing W.P. (C)
No. 543 of 2001, the Court
E
HELD : 1. The challenge to the constitutional validity of the
Indian Council of World A.ffairs Act, 2001 fails. [199-G)

2.1. At one time, the institution-ICWA was receiving financial aid
from the Government of India. ICWA has been declared to be an
F 'institution of national importance' by the Act of Parliament, thus the
Parliament is competent to make any law governing the management,
administration and affairs of such an institution. It is not the case of
the petitioners that in enacting other provisions of the impugned Act,
the Parliament has encroached upon any field of legislation not
G available
r
to it. The legislation is clearly covered by Entries 62 and 63
of List I Schedule 7 of the Constiution. [199·H, 200-A, B, CJ

-.)'- ......
2.2. The various Entries in the three Lists of the Seventh Schedule
are legislative heads defining the fields of legislation. A large and "'
•
H liberal interpretation should be given to the scope of the Entries. Not
DHARAM DUTT v. U.O.I. 155
, only the main matte~ but also any in incidental and ancillary~atters A
/

are to be included within the field of the entry. The settled rules of
interpretation governing the Entries do not countenance any narrow
and pedantic interpretation. 1200-C-E)

Navinchandra Mafatlal v. CIT Bombay City, (1955) 1 SCR 829 and B
Sri Ram Ram Narain Medhi v. The State of Bombay, 11959) Supp. 1 SCR
989, relied on.

British Coal C01poration v. The King, AIR (1935) PC 158 and
United Provinces v. Atiqa Begum, AIR (1941) FC 16, referred to.
c
3.1. The Court, confronted with a challenge to the constitutional
validity of any legislative enactment by reference to Article 19 would
first ask what is the sweep of the fundamental right guaranteed to the
citizens by the relevant sub-clause out of sub-clauses (a) to (g) of clause
(1); if the right canvassed falls within the sweep and expanse of any D
of the sub-clauses of clause (1), then whether the impugned law
imposes a reasonable restriction falling with the scope of chmses (2)
to (6) respectively. However, if the right sought to be canvass"d does
not fall within the sweep of the fundamental rights but is a mere
concomitant or adjunct or expansion or incidence of that right, then
the v.alidity thereof is not to be tested by reference to clauses (2) to (6). E
The test which it would be required to satisfy for its constitutional
validity is one of reasonableness, or if it comes into conflict with any
other provision of the Constitution. This has to be decided by keeping
in view the substance of the legislation and not being beguiled by the
mere appearance of the legislation. 1181-B-D; 187-F) F
The State of Madras v. VG. Row, (1952) SCR 597, followed.

HC. Narayanappa & Ors...v. State of Mysore & Ors., (1960) 3 SCR
742, relied on.
G
State of West Bengal v. Subodh Gopal Bose & Ors., [1954) SCR 587,
referred to.
'
3.2. In spite of there being a general presumption in favour of the
constitutionality of the legislation, in a challenge laid to the validity of H
156 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.
>
A any leg.fslation allegedly violating any right or fr!edom guaranteed by
clause (1) of Article 19 of the Constitution, on a primafacie case of such
'
violation having been made out, the onus would shift upon the
respondent-State to show that the legislation comes within the
permissible limits of the most relevant out of clauses (2) to (6) of Article
B 19 of the Constitution, and that the restriction is reasonable. The Cou.rt
would expect the State to place before it sufficient material justifying
the restriction and its reasonability. On the State succeeding in
bringing the restriction within the scope of any of the permissible
restrictions, such as, the sovereignty and integrity of India or public
C order, decency or morality etc., the onus of showing that restr.iction
is unreasonable would shift back to the petitioner. Where the restriction
on its face appea'rs to be unreasonable, nothing more would be
required to substantiate the plea of unreasonability. Thus the onus of
proof in such cases is an on-going shifting process to be consciously
D observed by the court. (187-B-E]

Charanjit Lal Chowdhwy v. The Union of India & Ors., (1950) SCR
869; Board of Trustees, Ayu:-vedic and Unani Tibia College, Delhi v. State
of Delhi (Now Delhi Administration) & Anr., (1962) Supp. 1 SCR 156,
relied on.
E
3.3. A right to form associations or unions guaranteed under ,. ' )<.
Article 19(l)(c) does not include within its ken as a'fundamental right
a right to form associations or unions for achieving a particular object
or running a particular institution, the same being a concomitant or
F concomitant to a concomitant of a fundamental right, but not the
fundamental right itself. The associations or unions of citizens cannot
further claim as a fundamental right that it must also be able to achieve
the purpose for which it has come into existence so that any interference
with such achievement by law shall be unconstitutional, unless the t
G same could be justified under Article 19(4) as being a restriction
imposed in· the interest of public order or morality. It would be
contradictory to the scheme underlying the text and the frame of the
several fundamental rights guaranteed by Part III and the scheme of
the guarantees conferred by sub-clauses (a) to~ (g) of clause (1) of
H Article 19. (173-E-H]
DHARAM DUTT v. U.O.I. 157
3.4. Even a very liberal interpretation cannot lead to the conclusion A
that the trade unions have a guaranteed right to an effective collective
bargaining or to strike, either as part of collective bargaining or
otherwise. The right to strike or the right to declare a lock-out may
be controlled or restricted by appropriate industrial legislation, and
the validity of such legislation would have to be tested not with B
reference to the criteria laid down in clause (4) of Article 19 but by
totally different considerations. A right guaranteed by Article 19(1)(c)
on a literal reading thereof can be subjected to those restrictions which
satisfy the test of clause (4) of Article 19. The rights not included in
the literal meaning of Article 19(1)(c) but which are sought to be C
included therein as flowing therefrom i.e. every right which is necessary
in order that the association, brought into existence, fulfills every
object for which it is formed, the qualifications therefor would not
merely be those in clause (4) of Article 19 but would be more numerous
and very different. Restrictions which bore upon and took into account
the several fields in which associations or unions of citizens might D
legitimately engage themselves, would also become relevant. (175-D-HJ ·

3.5. A perusal of Article 19 with certain other Articles like 26, 29
and 30 shows that while Article 19 grants rights to the citizens as such,
the associations can lay claim to the fundamental rights guaranteed by E
Article 19 solely on the basis of there being an aggregation of citizens,
i.e., the rights of the citizens composing the body. As the stream can
rise no higher than the source, associations of citizens cannot lay claim
to rights not open to citizen or claim freedom from restrictions to
which the citizens composing it are subject. While right to form an F
association is to be tested by reference to Article 19(1)(c) and the
validity of restriction thereon by reference to Article 19(4), once the
individual citizens have formed an association and carry on some
activity, the validity of legislation restricting the activities of the
association shall have to be judged by reference to Article 19(l)(g) read
with 19(6). A restrictioh on the activities of the association is not a G
restriction on the activities of the individual citizens forming membership
of the association. [174-B-C, 174-A-B)

Smt. Damyanti Naranga & Anr. v. The Union of India and Ors.,
[1971) 3 SCR 840 and Asam Rashtrabhasha Prachar Samiti, Hedayatpur- H
158 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] StJPP. 6 S.C.R.

A Gauhati-3 and Anr. v. State a/Assam and Ors., (1'9891.Supp. SCR 160,
distinguished.

Smt. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India & Anr.; (197811 SCC 248;
All India Bank Employees' Association v. National Industrial Tribunal,
[19621 3 SCR 269; Mis. Raghubar Dayal Jai Parkash & Anr. v. Union
B of India & Anr., (196213 SCR 547; Azeez Basha v. Union of India, (19681
1SCR833; D.A. V. CollegeJullunduretc., v. The State ofPunjab and Ors.,
(1971] 2 SCC 269; Sethapathi Nageswara Rao & Or~. v. The Government
of A.P. & Ors., AIR (1978) A.P. 121 (F.B.); Harakh Bhagat and Anr. v.
Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Barh, and Ors., AIR (1968)
C Patna 211; SP. Motta v. Union of India & Ors., (1983) 1 SCC 51 and
L.N Mishra Institute of Economic Development and Social <:;hange, Patna
v. State of Bihar & Ors., (1988) 2 SCC 433, referred to.

3.6. As soon as citizens form a company, the rights are guaranteed
D to them by Article 19(1)(c). Once a company or a corporation' is
formed, the business carried on by the said company or corporation
is the business of the company or corporation, and_is not the business
of the citizens who get the company or corporation formed or
incorporated, and the rights of the incorporated body must.be judged
E on that footing alone and cannot be judged on the assumption that they
are the rights attributable to the business of individual citizens. The
same principle would apply to a society registered under the Societies
Registration Act, 1860. (177-D-F]

Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. & Anr. v. The State and
F Ors., (1964) 6 SCR 885, r£:lied on.

3.7. The pith and substance of the impugned legislation is to take
over an institution of national importance. As the formation of the
society, which is a voluntary association, is not adversely affected and.
G the members of the society are free to continue with such association,
the validity of the impugned legislation cannot be tested by reference
to sub-clauses (a) and (c) of clause (1) of Article 19. The activity of the
society which was being .conducted through the in~titution ICWA has
been adversely affected and to that extent the -validity of the legislation
H shall have to be tested by reference to sub-clause (g) of clause (I) of
DHARAM DUTT v. U.O.I. 159
_"(

Article 19. The activity was of the society and the society cannot claim A .
a fundamental right. Even otherwise the impugned legislation is a
reasonable legislation enacted in the interest of the general public and
• to govern an institution of national importance. It is valid. It does not
offend the right guaranteed by Articie 19(1)(c). It also does not in any
manner deprive the members of the Society of their freedom of speech B
and expression under Article 19(l)(a). 1184-G-H, A-B; 187-Gf

4.1. No other institution in the grip of more serious mismanagement
and mat-administration is named or particularized so as to be
comparable with ICWA and there can be a legislation in respect of a C
single institution as is clear from the language itself of Entries 62 and
63 of List I. A single institution is capable of being treated as a class
by itself for the purpose of legislation ifthere are special circumstances
or rel1SOns which are applicable to that institution and such legislation
would not incur the wrath of Article 14. (192-G-H; 193-A)
D
4.2. Merely because an al.ternative action under the Societies
Registration Act, 1860 could have served the purpose, a case cannot
be and is not made out for finding fault with another legislation if the
same be within the legislative competence of the Parliament. The
Parliament had legislative competence to pass the legislation in exercise E
of its legislative power under Article 245 of the Constitution read with
Entries 62 and 63 of List I. The legislation cannot be said to be
arbitrary or violative of Article 14. [192-B~Cf

S.P. Mittal v; Union ofIndia & Ors., {1983 f l SCC 51; Ram Krishna F.
Dalmia v. Justice S.R. Tendolkar, (1959] SCR 279; Raja Birakishore v.
State of Orissa, [1964) 7 SCR 32 and Chiranjit Lal Chowdhuri v. Union
of India, [1950] SCR 869, referred to.

5. The exercise of testing the vires of the impugned legislation by
reference to Article 300A of the Constitution is uncalled for in the G
instant petition since the right to property has ceased to be a fundamental
right, and it is doubtful if it could be enforced by a petition under
Article 32 of the Constitution; that a case of violation of Article 300A
the \vay it is canvassed is not taken up in the writ petition; that the
petition raises disputed questions of facts; that the Union of India has H
160 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A taken over the institution by ena::ting a law which is within the
legislative competence of the Parliament; and that there is not one
document of title produced by the petitioners in support of their claim
to the property. 1191-D; 190-H; 191-A-q

6. The whole doctrine of Colourable legisl!ltion resolves itself into
B the question of the competency of a particular legislature to enact a
particular law. It does not involve any question of bona jides or mala
jides on the part of the legislature. If the legislature is competent to pass
a particular law, motives which impelled it to act are irrelevant and
if incompetent, the question of motive does not. arise at all. In the.
C instant case, the Parliament has the requisite competence to enact the
impugned Act, the enquiry into the motive which persuaded the
Parliament into passing the Act are not relevant. (168-E-Gl

KC. Gajapati Narayan Deo & Ors. v. State of Orissa, (1954) SCR
D and Board of Trustees, Ayun1edic and Unani Tibia College, Delhi v.
State of Delhi (Now Delhi Administration) & Anr., (1962) Supp. 1 SCC
156, referred to.

7.1. Filing of an appeal destroys the finality of the judgment under
appeal. Upon the lapsing of the earlier Ordinance pending an appeal
E before a Division Bench, appeal being rendered infructuous, the
judgment of Single Judge about the illegality of the earlier Ordinance,
cannot any longer bar this Court from deciding about the validity of
a fresh law on its own merits, even if the fresh law contains similar
provisions. (198-F; 199-A-B)
F
7.2. The judgment of High Court is not correct and the overruling
of the same is specifically recorded. Ifby reason ofretrospective alteration
of the factual or legal situation, the judgment is rendered erroneous,
the constitutional validity of the subsequent legislation is not available
to be decided on the basis of the previous judgment. (195-D)
G
7.3. A legislation which on an independent scrutiny is held to be
within the legislative competence of the enacting legisl!)ture cannot be
struck down merely· because the legislature has re-enacted the same
legal provisions into an Act which, ten years before, were incorporated
H in an Ordinance and were found to be unconstitutional in an erroneous
.. DHARAM DUTT v. U.0.1. 161

judgment of the High Court and before the error could be corrected in A
appeal the Ordinance itselflapsed. By the impugned Act the Parliament
has not overruled the judgment of the High Court nor has it declared
the same law to be valid which has been pronounced to be void by the
court. It would have been better if before passing the Bill into an Act
the attention of the Parliament was specifically invited to the factum of B
an earlier pari materia Ordinance having been annulled by the High
Court. The impugned Act is not liable to be annulled on the ground of
violation of the doctrine of Separation of Powers. (199-C-GI

Shri Prithvi Cotton Mills Ltd. & Anr. v. Broach Borough Municipality
& Ors., (19691 2 SCC 283; Mis. Misrilal Jain v. State of Orissa & Anr., C
fl977) 3 SCC 212; Madan Mohan Pathak & Anr. v. Union of India &
Ors., fl978) 2 SCC 50; Union of India & Anr. v. Raghubir Singh (Dead)
by Lrs. etc., (198912SCC754; Indian Aluminium Co. & Ors. v. State of
Kera/a & Ors., [199617 SCC 637; Welfare Association A. R.P. M(Jharashtra
& Anr. v. Ranjit P. Gohil & Ors., JT (2003) 2 SC 335; People's Union
for Civil Liberties (PUCL) & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr., (2003] 4 sec D
399 and Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Shri Raj Narain & Anr., (19751
Supp. SCC I, referred to.

A Judge on Judging : The Role of a Supreme Court in Democracy-
By President Aharon Barak, Supreme Court of Israel, Harvard Law E
Review, Vol. 116, No. 1, November 2002, p. 135, referred to.

8. All the grounds taken in writ petition challenging the Indian
Council of World Affairs Ordinance, 2001 have been reiterated and
reurged in the writ petition challenging the Indian Council of World
Affairs Act 2001. As the merits of the pleas raised on behalf of the writ F
petitioners are available to be considered in the latter writ petition, the
writ petition challenging the Ordinance is rendered infructuous and is
disposed of without any adjudication on merits. The Ordinance having
ceased to operate, the factum of promulgation of such Ordinance remains
only ·a part of the narration of events. Further no such action was taken
thereunder the legality whereof may survive for adjudication. G
(168-A-C]

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (C) No. 276 of
2001.

Under A11icle 32 of the Constitution of India. H
162 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A WITH

W.P. (C) No. 543 of 2001.

Ashok Nigam, P.P. Rao, Sunil Kumar, Sushender Kumar Chauhan,
Ms. Ritu Puri, Ms. Naresh Bakshi, D.K. Gupta, B.S. Baloria, DineshKumar
B Garg, Dev.inder Verma and R.P. Gupta for the Petitioners.

Raju Ramachandaran, Additional Solicitor General, Altaf Ahmad,
Additional Solicitor General (NP), D.N. Ray, Tufail A. Khan, Ashok
Kumar Pandey, B.V. Bairam Dass, D.S. Mahra, Y.P. Mahajan, M.K.
C MiChael and Shreekant N. Terdol for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was deliyered by

R.C. LAHOTI, J.

D 1. W.P. (C) No. 276/2001 filed on June 22, 2002, lays challenge to
the constitutional validity of the Indian Council of World Affairs Ordinance,
2001 (No.3 of 200 I), promulgated by the President of India on May 8,
2001, in exercise pf the powers conferred by clause (1) of Article 123 of
the Constitution of India. During the pendency of this petition the
Ordinance came to be replaced by an Act of Parliament, namely, the Indian
E Council of World Affairs Act, 200 I (Act No.29 of 290 I), which came into
force w.e.f. September I, 2000. On 19.10.2001 W.P.(C) No.543/2001 was
filed laying challenge to the constitutional validity of this Act. Both the
petitions have been filed under Article 32 of Hie Constitution oflndia and
respectively allege the Ordinance and the Act to b~ violative of Artjcles
F 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1 )(c) and 300A' 'of the Constitution.

Factual backdrop:

2. In the year 1943, the Indian Council of World Affairs was formed
G by about 50 distinguished eminent public personalities as a non-official,
non-political and non-profit organization. On March 31, 1945, the
Association was registered as a society under the Societies Registration
Act, 1860. The principal object of the Society, as set out in the
Memorandum of Association, was to promote the study of Indian and
international questions so as to develop a body of informed opinion on
H world affairs and Indian relation thereto through study, research, discussion,
DHARAM DUTT v. U.0.1. [LAHOTI, J.] 163

lectures, exchange of ideas and information etc., with other bodies in India A
and abroad engaged in similar activities. The activities of the Society were
housed in a building known as Sapru House. Sapru House has come up
on a land of about 2 acres situated at No. I, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi,
given on lease by the Government of India some time in the year 1950-
51. Sapru House has a library with a collection of books mainly on B
international affairs, an auditorium for holding seminars and discussions,
a conference room and other office accommodation. The Society. was
receiving grants from the Government of India from 1974 until the year
1987, whereafter the grant has been discontinued.

3. On June 30, 1990, the President ofindia promulgated an Ordinance C
whereby a statutory body known as the Indian Council of World Affairs
was constituted, having perpetual succession and a common seal, with
power to hold and dispose of property both movable and immovable. The
constitutional validity of this Ordinance was put in issue by filing a writ
petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh; D
registered as Civil Writ Petition No.9120of1990. A learned single Judge
of the High Court vi de judgment dated September l 0, 1990, allowed the
writ petition, holding the Ordinance to be ultra vires of the Constitution
of India, violating Articles 14, 19(l)(a) and 19(l)(c) thereof and also
beyond the legislative competence of the Parliament. The Union of India E
- .. filed a letters patent appeal against this judgment of the learned single
Judge. The letters patent appeal came up for hearing before a Divisiop
Bench of the High Court on October22, 1990. It was brought to the notice
of the Division Bench .. th;;it .the ·Ordinance promulgat~.d on June 30, 1990
had lapsed on September 19, 1990, as the Bill seeking to replace the
Ordinance by an Act of Parliament could not be passed. The Division F
Bench formed an opinfon that the letters patent appeal had becom~
infructuous and directed the same to be dismissed without any adjudication
on merits.

4. In December 1999, the Ministry of Urban Development, Government G
of India, cancelled the perpetual lease of the land of the Indian Council
of World Affairs. The cancellation of lease was followed by an order of
re-entry. A writ petition was filed in the Delhi Higli Cou1t, laying challenge
to the said action of the Central Government. The learned single Judge
before whom the writ petition came up for hearing refused to grant any H
164 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A interim relief to the writ petitioner, and so a Letters Patent Appeal No. 577/
99 came to be filed before the Division Bench 'of the Delhi High Court.
On December 24, 1999, the High Court directed further proceedings before
the Estate Officer under the Public Premises Act to remain stayed. It seems
that there was some controversy about the breach of the interim order
B granted by the High Court, which led to the filing of two contempt petitions
in the High Court of Delhi, which are still pending.

5. On September 1, 2000, the President of India promulgated
Ordinance No. 3 of2000, the terms whereofwere more or less similar and
identical with those of the Ordinance of 1990. The constitutional validity
C of this Ordinance was challenged by filing C.W.P. No. 5174 of2000 in
the High Court of Delhi. A Bill proposing to replace the Ordinance was
moved in the Parliament which was passed· by the Lok Sabha and was
pending in the Rajya Sabha, but the Rajya Sabha was adjourned and,
therefore, the Ordinance lapsed on December 31, 2000.
D
6. On January 5, 2001, Ordinance No.I of2001 was promulgated
seeking to revive Ordinance No.3 of 2000; however, this Ordinance too
lapsed on April 3, 200 l.

7. On May 8, 2001, Ordinance No. 3of2001 was promulgated and
E replaced by an Act of Parliament, which received the assent of the President
of India on September J, 200 l. 'r

8. The facts stated hereinabove are almost undisputed. We say so
because the chronology of events is not at all in dispute; there is a minor
f variation in the manner of narration of the events and the background
leading to the promulgation of the Ordinances and the passing of the Act,
which are not very material and hence 'have been overlooked. We may
now broadly state the facts which are disputed and which form the subject
matter of the controversy arising for decision in the writ petitions.

G The Controversy
9. According to the writ petitioners, Sapru House is a building
constructed by the Society. The building, the library and all other
movables in Sapru House are owned by the Society. By promulgating the
H impugned Ordinance and by enacting the impugned Act, the Central
DHARAM DUTT v. U.O.I. [LAHOTI, J.] 165

Government has taken over the Society as also its movable and immovable A
properties. This has resulted in violating the right of the writ petitioners
to the freedom of speech and expression and to form associations or unions
as conferred on citizens by sub-clauses (a) and (c) of clause (I) of Article
19 of the Constitution of India. The Society has been deprived of its
property without any authority of law which is violative of Article 300A B
of the Constitution of India. The impugned Ordinance and the Act are
malicious inasmuch as they are motivated by political considerations. It
is also alleged that the impugned Ordinance and the Act are violative of
the doctrine of Separation of Powers. The High Court of Punjab and
Haryana had stn1ck down an Ordinance which contained similar provisions C
and the said judgment dated September 10, 1990, has achieved a finality
in view of the challenge to the legality of the judgment having been given
up by the Union of Indian by not pressing the letters patent appeal. A
subsequent legislation which is in defiance of the judgment of the High
Court deserves to be struck down solely on this ground.
D
10. According to the counter-affidavit filed by the Union oflndia, the
Indian Council of World Affairs ('ICWA', for short) had attained an
international stature in connection with world affairs and the foreign
policies of India vis-a-vis other countries. However, the activities of the
Society, i.e. running the Institution, were being complained against by E
several persons ail over the country on account of the sub-standard level
of the programmes and the activities being conducted, as also about the
standard of the maintenance of stock of books, periodicals, etc. in the
library. The image and reputation of the Institution drew adverse publicity
in the Press. In the counter-affidavit several such instances have been
highlighted under the title "Glaring Instances of Maladministration" as F
revealed in the Audit conducted by the Comptroller and Auditor General
of India. These instances highlight irregular and incomplete maintenance
of accounts, misuse and diversion of funds, and deficits and losses
accumulating year by year on account of mismanagement and mal-
administration. Photographs have been filed with the counter affidavit G
..I

showing the state of disrepair of the building and its furniture. Serious
irregularities were found to have been committed in the conduct of
elections of the Executive Committee, resulting in the complete breakdown
of the democratic' functioning of the Institution. The electoral roll consisted
ofmembers who had discontinued their membership. Fruit and vegetable H
166 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.
A vendors were enrolled as members of the Indian Council of World Affairs,
so as to pack the membership with defunct members only to ensure the
continuance in office of a certain set of people. Membership fees of all
such multiple members were being deposited by a single cheque.

B 11. On the affidavit of the Joint Secretary in the Ministry of External
Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi, it has been stated that financial
assistance was regularly granted to ICWA by the MEA and Deptt. of
Culture (Ministry of Education). Grants have been given after 1986 by
organizations like ICSSR. Adhoc grants had been given ,b/the Deptt. of
Culture between 1974-1975 till 1988-1989. The last grant of Rs. 5 lakh-
C from MEA was in 1985-1986. In 1996-1997, the ICWA management
wrote off the Capital Reserve of Rs.19,38,302 against an accumulated
deficit
. of Rs.31,06,897. The deficit of the erstwhile ICWA continued to
~

increase till the takeover by the newly incorporated body on 2nd September,
2000. The report of the Special Audit ofICWA by CAG, which commenced
D on 11.8.2000, highlights unaccounted for liabilities to the extent of
Rs. 132.84 lacs, contravention of the provisions of the perpetual lease, non-
adjustment of cash drawn for day to day expenses amounting to
Rs. 22,48,399.65, and possible misappropriation of funds to the tune of
Rs. 1,39,086.10 by inflating the total amount of the salary bills.
E 12. According to the respondents, the property - Sapru House, is ~i

situated on land which belongs to the Government of India (Land &
Development Office). Large subventions and grants have been given from
time to time by the Governm'ent of India to the Society wherefrom the
building was constructed. The lease of the land was terminated for non-
F payment of dues as well as for various breaches amounting to' misuse
committed by the Society. The dues as per the claim of the L&DO worked
out to more than Rs. 9 crores. Eviction orders were passed by the Estate
Officer, which have been stayed by the High Court. However, having
acquired management and control over the Institution and the building and
G other properties in the year 1990, pursuant to the Ordinance, the Government
of India had spent about Rs. 2 crores so as to restore Sapru House to its
original condition and make it fit for habitation· and use. The Union of
India has vehemently denied the allegation of the petitioners that the
impugned Ordinance and Legislation were politically motivated. It is
H submitted that Governments have changed from time to time with different
DHARAM DUTT v. U.0.I. [LAHOTI, J.] 167

political leanings. However, three Parliamentary Standing Committees A
appointed at different points of time have recommended the taking over
of Sapru House, lamenting the decline in the standard of the Institution.
Earlier Ordinances are a matter of history and of mere academic relevance
in view of the Parliament having ultimately enacted the Act. As to the
impugned Act being in violation of the doctrine of Separation of Powers B
and in defiance of the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court,
the respondents have submitted that the decision of the learned single Judge
was incorrect. It was put in issue by filing a letters patent appeal, which
appeal was disposed of without any adjudication on merits due to the High
Court having formed an opinion that the adjudication of the appeal was
rendered academic in view of the Ordinance having lapsed. The respondents C
could not have pressed for decision of the letters patent appeal on merits
nor could they have taken the matter further because the High Court or this
Court would not have entered into the examination of an issue which was
rendered of academic interest only.
D
13. The Union oflndia has vehemently submitted that the Society has
not been touched. It continues to survive as before and, therefore, the
question of any fundamental right within the meaning of sub-clauses (a)
and (c) of clause (I) of Article 19 ofthe Constitution oflndia having been
breached, does not arise. As the Institution, the Indian Council of World E
Affairs, is an institution of national importance, the impugned enactment
is protected by Entries 62 and 63 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the
Constitution of India.

14. In the submission of the Union of India the building and the
library have been built out ofOovernment oflndia funds and subventions, F
and some donations received from persons of the eminence of former
Prime Ministers and the President of India and other dignitaries. The
Society does not have any right in any of the properties, as is being claimed
by the petitioners.

J Challenge to Ordinance infi·uctuous [WP.(C) No.276 of 2001} G
15. Before we enter into examining th~ merits of the attack laid on the
impugned Act, we would like to summarily dispose of W.P.(C) No. 276 of
200 l wherein the challenge has been laid to the validity of the Ordinance
only. The Ordinance has been replaced by an Act of Parliament. A fresh H
168 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003) SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A petition has been filed laying challenge to the constitutional validity of the
Act. All the grounds taken in W.P.(C) No. 276/2001 have been reiterated
and reurged in W.P.(C) No.543/200 I. As the merits of the pleas raised on
behalf of the writ petitioners are available to be considered in the latter civil
writ petition, W.P.(C) No.276/2001 is rendered infructuous and we direct
B it to be treated as disposed of without any adjudication on merits. The
Ordinance impugned therein having ceased to operate, the factum of
promulgation of such Ordinance remains only a part of the narration of
events. No such action was taken thereunder th~ legality whereof may
survive for adjudication in spite of the lapse of the Ordinance. We will,
C therefore, confine ourselves to dealing with the validity of the impugned
Act.

Whether the impugned enactment is vitiated by malafides? :

16. Though the petition alleges the impugned Act (with the history of
D preceding Ordinances) to be the outcome of political malice, no particulars
thereof have been given by the writ petitoner. However, that aspect need
not be deliberated upon any further in view of two Constitution Bench
decisions of this Court. It has beenheld inK.C. Gajapati Narayan Deo &
Ors. v. Stqte ofOrissa, (1954] SCR l, and in BoardqfTrustees, Ayurvedic
and Unani Tibia College, Delhi v. State ofDf!/hi (Now DelhiAdministration)
E & Anr., (1962] Supp. (I) SCR 156, thatthe doctrine ofColourable Legislation
does not involve any question of bonajides or malafides on the part ofthe
legislature. The whole doctrine resolves itself into the .question {)f the
competency of a particular legislature to enact a particular law. Jf the
legislature is competent to pass a particular law, the motives which impelled
F it to act are really irrelevant. On the other hand, if the legislature lacks
competency, the question of motive does not arise at all. We will, therefore,
concentrate on the legislative competence ofParliament to enact the impugned
legislation. If the Parliament has the requisite competence to enact the
impugned Act, the enquiry into the motive which persuaded the Parliament
G into passing the Act would be of no use at all.

Gist of the impugned Act

17. The Preamble to the Act, that is, the Indian Council of World
Affairs Act, 2001 (Act No. 29 of 2001) reads - "An Act to declare the
H Indian Council of World Affairs to be an institution of national importance
DHARAM DUTT v. U.0.1. [LAHOTI, J.] 169

and to provide for its incorporation and matters connected therewith." A
Section 2 declares 1.C.W.A. as an institution of national importance.
Section 4 incorporates a statutory council by the name of the Indian
Council of World Affairs as a body corporate, which shall have perpetual
succession and a common seal with power to hold property, movable and
immovable, and to contract and to sue and be sued in its name. Section B
5 transfers all properties and assets, debts, obligations and liabilities and
contracts of the existing. council to the new body corporate. The new
council consists of the Vice-President of India as its ex-officio President
and the Prime Minister of India, the Speaker of the Lok Sabha, the Leader
of the House, Raj ya Sabha, the Leaders of the Opposition in both the Lok
Sabha and Rajya Sabha to be its members, with a provision for future C
expansion so as to include in the council certain specified and nominated
members of the Central Government. Provisions are made for the staff,
the functions of the council, budgeting, accounts and audit, and so on. The
Central Government is vested with the power to make Rules to carry out
the provisions of the Act. The council may make regulations consistent D
with the Act and the Rules. Without entering into further details it would
suffice for our purpose to sum up the gist of the Act by st:lting that :- (1)
a new body corporate known as the Indian Council of World Affairs has
come into existence; (2) the institution, 'Indian Council of World Affairs'
has been declared to be an institution of national importance; (3) the E
institution has been taken over by the Central Government and entrusted
to the new Council - a statutory corporate body; (4) the society named
the Indian Council of World Affairs has not been touched at all; its
membership and organization have been left intact, untampered with and
untouched.
F
18. According to the respondents, the impugned Act falls within the
purview of Entries 62 and 63 of List 1 of the Seventh Schedule, which
Entries read as under.:-

"62. The institutions known at the commencement of this
Constitution as the National Library, the Indian Museum, the G
Imperial War Museum, the Victoria Memorial and the
Indian War Memorial, and any other like institution financed
by the Government of India wholly or in part and declared
by Parliament by law to be an institution of national
importance. H
170 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A 63. The institutions known at the commencement of this
Constitution as the Benares Hindu University, the Aligarh
Muslim University and the Delhi University; the University
established in pursuance of Article 371-E; and any other
institution declared by Parliament by Jaw to be an institution
B of national irripo1tance."

19. With this much of an introductory statement, we proceed to deal
with the several grounds of attack urged by the petitioners.

C Impugned Act if violative of Article 19(J){a) & (c}
20. Article 19(1)(a) and (c) and clauses (2) and (4) of Atticle 19,
relevant for our purpose, provide as under :-

"19. Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech,
.~

D etc.-

( 1) All citizens shall have the right.-

(a) to freedom of speech and expression;

E (b) xxx xxx

(c) to form associations or unions;

(d) to (g) xxx xxx
F
(2) Nothing in sub-clause (a) of clause ( l) shall affect the
operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making
any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on
the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause in the
G interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of
the State, friendly relations with Foreign States, public order,
decencyor morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation
or incitement to an offence.

(3) xxx xxx xxx
H
DHARAM DUTT v. U.0.I. [LAHOTI, J.] 171

(4) Nothing in sub-clause (c) of the said clause shall affect the A
operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevent
the State from makirw. 3;!1Y law imposing, in the interests of the
sovereignty and integrity of India ?~ public order or morality,
reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by
the said sub-clause. B
(5) xxx xxx xxx

(6) xxx xxx xxx"

21. The Constitution Bench in The State of Madras v. VG. Row,
c
(1952] SCR 597, laid down twin tests on which the constitutional validity
of a legislation under Article 19 is to be tested. The first test is the test
of reasonableness which is common to all the clauses under Article 19( l );
and the second test is to ask for the answer to the question, whether the D
restriction sought to be imposed on the fundamental right, falls within sub-
articles (2) to (6) respectively qua the clauses (a) to (g) of Article 19(1).
The test of reasonableness, according to the Constitution Bench, should be
applied to each individual statute impugned, and no abstract standard, or
general pattern of reasonableness can be laid down as applicable to all
cases. The nature of the right alleged to have been infringed, the E
underlying purpose of the restrictions imposed, the extent and urgency of
the evil sought to be remedied thereby, the disproportion of the imposition,
the prevailing conditions at the time, should all enter into the judicial
verdict. In evaluating such elusive factors and forming their own
conception of what is reasonable, in all the circumstances of a given case, F
it is inevitable that the social philosophy and the scale of values of the
Judges participating in the decision should play an important part, and the
limit to their interference with legislative judgment in such cases can only
be dictated by their sense of responsibility and self-restraint, and the
sobering reflection that the Constitution is meant not only for people of G
their way of thinking but for all, and that the majority of the elected
representatives of the people have, in authorizing the imposition of the
restrictions, considered them to be reasonable. Under the second test, the
Constitution Bench, called upon to deal with the legislation impugned
before it by reference to Articles 19(1 )( c) and 19(4) of the Constitution, H
172 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A held the impugned legislation to be unconstitutional and void because it
curtailed the fundamental right to form associations or unions and fell
outside the limits of authorized restrictions under clause (4) of Article
;
19.

22. Article 19(1) of the Constitution came up for the consideration
. '
B of a Seven-Judges Bench of this Court in Smt. Maneka Gandhi v. Union
of India & Anr., [1978] I SCC 248. Dealing with the scope and purport
of Article 19(1) the Bench held:-

"Even if a right is not specifically named in Article 19(1 ), it may
still be a fundamental right covered by some clause of that Article
c if it is an integral part of a named fundamental right or partakes
of the same basic nature and character as that fundamental right.
It is not enough that a right claimed by the petitioner flows or
emanates from a named fundamental right or that its existence is
necessary in order to make the exercise of the named fundamental
D right meaningful and effective. Every activity which facilitates the
exercise of a named fundamental right is not necessarily
comprehended in that fundamental right nor can it be regarded
as such merely because it may not be possible otherwise to
effectively exercise that fundamental right What is necessary to
be seen is, and that is the test which must be applied is, whether
E
the right claimed by the petitioner is an integral part of a named ·
fundamental right or partakes of the same basic nature and
character as the named fundamental right so that the exercise of
such right is in reality and substance nothing but an instance of
the exercise of the named fundamental right. If this be the correct
F test, the right to go abroad cannot in all circumstances be regarded
as included in freedom of speech and expression."

(emphasis supplied)

G 23. Their Lordships referred to All India Bank Employees' Association
v. National Industrial Tribunal, [1962] 3 SCR 269 wherein the plea raised
was that the right to form associations protected under Article 19(1) (c)
carried with it a guarantee that the association shall effectively achieve the
purpose for which it was formed, without interference by law, except on
H grounds relevant to the preservation of public order or morality as set out
DHARAM DUTT v. U.0.L [LAHOTJ, J.] 173

in A11icle 19(4). The plea so raised was rejected. The Court negatived the A
argument that the freedom to form unions carried with it the concomitant
right that such unions should be able to fulfill the object for which they
were formed. The scope of the fundamental right conferred by Article
19(1)(a) cannot be expanded on the theory of peripheral or concomitant
right. Their Lordships held that such a theory havir.g been firmly rejected B
in the All India Bank Employees Association's case (supra), any attempt
to n~vive it cannot be countenanced as that would completely upset the
, scheme of Attic le 19( i ). The words of Rajagopala Ayyanger, J. were
quoted with approval, as saying "by a series of ever expanding concentric
circles in the shape of rights wncomitant to concomitant rights and so on, C
lead to an almost grotesque result". In Maneka Gandhi's case (supra) the
right to go abroad was clearly held not to be a guaranteed right under
Article 19(1) and an imposition by law of restrictions on the right to go
abroad was held to be not offending Article 19(1 )(a) or (g), as its direct
and inevitable impact is only on the right to go abroad and not on the right D
of free speech and expression or the right to carry on any trade, busi.1ess,
profession or calling.

24. From a reading of the two decisions, namely, Smt. Maneka
Gandhi's case (supra), (seven-Judges Bench) and All India Bank Employees
Association's case (supra), (five-Judges Bench), the following principles E
emerge : (i) a right to form associations or unions does not include within
its ken as a fundamental right a right to form associations or unions for
achieving a particular object or running a particular institution, the same
being a concomitant o; concomitant to a concomitant of a fundamental
right, but not the fundamental right itself. The associations or unions of F
citizens cannot further claim as a fundamental right that it must also be
able to achieve the purpose for which it has come into existence so that
any interference with such achievement by law shall be unconstitutional,
unless the same could be justified under Article 19(4) as being a restriction
imposed in the interest of public order or morality; (ii) A right to form G
associations guaranteed under Article 19 (I)(c) does not imply the fulfillment
of every object of an association as it would be contradictory to the scheme
underlying the text and the frame of the several fundamental rights
guaranteed by Part III and particular~y by the scheme of the guarantees
conferred by sub-clauses (a) to (g) of clause (I) of Article 19; (iii) While H
174 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A right to form an association is to be tested by reference to Article 19(1 )(c)
and the validity of restriction thereon by rt:ference to Article 19(4 ), once
the individual citizens have formed an association and carry on some
activity, the validity oflegislation restricting the activities of the association
shall have to be judged by reference to Article 19(l)(g) read with 19(6).
B A restriction on the activities of the association is not a restriction on the
activities of the individual citizens forming membership of the association;
and (iv) A perusal of Article 19 with certain other Articles like 26, 29 and
30 shows that while Article 19 grants rights to the citizens as such,. the
associations can lay claim to the fundamental rights guaranteed by Article
C 19 solely on the basis of there being an aggregation of citizens, i.e., the
rights of the citizens composing the body. As the stream can rise no higher
than the source, associations of citizen:> cannot lay claim to rights not open
to citizens or claim freedom from restrictions to which the citizens
composing it are subject.

D 25. The Constitution Bench in All India Bank Employees' Association's
case (supra) gave a precise illustration thus - "If an association were
formed for the purpose of carrying on business, the right to form it would
be guaranteed by sub-clause (c) of ciause (1) of Article 19, subject to any
law restricting that right conforming to clause (4) of Article 19. As regards
E its business activities, however, and the achievement of the objects for
which it was brought into existence, its rights would be those guaranteed
by sub-clause (g) of clause (1) of Article 19, subject to any relevant law
on the matter conforming to clause (6) of Article 19; while the prope1ty
which the association acquires or possesses would be protected by sub-
F clause (f) of clause ( l) of Article 19 subject to legislation within the limifs
laid down by clause (5) of Article 19."

26. Giving exposition to the law by reference to the labour union, the
Constitution Bench held - "While the right to form a union is guaranteed
G by sub-clause (c), the right of the members of the association to meet would
be guaranteed by sub-clause (b), their right to move from place to place
within India by sub.-clause (d), their right to discuss their problerns and to
propagate their views by sub-clause (a), their right to hold property would
be that guaranteed by sub-clause (f) and so on - each of these freedoms
H being subject to such restrictions as might properly be imposed by clauses
DHARAM DUTT v. U.0.1. fLAHOTI, J.] 175

(2) to (6) of Article 19 as might be appropriate in the context. It is one A
thing to interpret each of the freedoms guaranteed by the several Articles
in Part III in a fair and liberal sense; it is quite another to read each
guaranteed right as involving or including concomitant rights necessary to
achieve the object which might be supposed to underlie the grant of each
of those rights." B
27. The Constitution Bench further held that the framing and structure
of pa1t III of the Constitution by the founding fathers calls for the
guarantees embodied in it to be interpreted in a liberal way, so as to
subserve the purpose for which the constitution-makers intendep them, and C
not in any pedantic or narrow sense. This, however, does not imply that
the Court is at liberty to give an unnatural and artificial meaning to the
expressions used based on ideological considerations.

28. A right to form unions guaranteed by Article 19(1 )(c) does not
carry with it a fundamental right in the union so formed to achieve every D
object for which it was formed with the legai consequence that any
legislation not falling within clause (4) of Article 19 which might in any
way hamper the fulfillment of those objects, should be declared
unconstitutional and void. Even a very li~eral interpretation cannot lead
to the conclusion that the trade unions have a guaranteed right to an E
effective collective bargaining or to strike, either as part of collective
bargaining or otherwise. The right to strike or the right to declare a lock-
out may be controlled or .restricted by appropriate industrial legislation, and
the validity of such legislation would have to be tested not with reference
to the criteria laid down in clause (4) of Article 19 but by totally different F
considerations. A right guaranteed by Article 19( I)( c) on a literal reading
thereof can be subjected to those restrictions which satisfy the test of clause
(4) of Article 19. The rights not included in the literal meaning of Article
19(1 )(c) but which are sought to be included therein as flowing therefrom
i.e. every right which is necessary in order that the association, brought G
into existence, fulfills every object for which it is formed; the qualifications
therefor would not 11).erely be those in clause (4) of Article 19 but would
be inore numerous and very different. Restrictions which bore upon and
took into account the several fields in which associations or unions of
citizens might legitiinately engage themselves, would also become relevant. H
176 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003) SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A 29. The law so settled, as has been stated hereinabove, has not
changed its course in the flow of subsequent judicial pronouncements. We
may selectively refer to a few of them. In Mis. Raghubar Dayal Jai
Parkash & Anr. v. The Union of India & Anr., ( 1962) 3 SCR 54 7, the issue
related to the Forward Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1952, which imposed
B restrictions on the recognition of associations by the Government. Provisions
were made for certain enquiries to be held and for the satisfaction of certain
criteria whereupon the association could be recognized. The challenge to
the constitutional validity of the provision was founded on the submission
that the provisions infringed upon the freedom to form associations under
Article 19( l )( c). It was urged that the constitutional guarantee to every
C citizen to the right to form an association could be limited only by an
imposition on the righ~ which might legally fall within clause (4) of Article
19 viz. bye laws which place restrictions based on either public order or
morality. It was further u·rged tha~ where the object of the association is
lawful, the citizens, through that association, and the association itself, are
D entitled by virtue of the guaranteed right to ·freedom from legislative
interference in the achievement of its object, except on grounds germane ·
to public order or morality. In other words, the freedom guaranteed should
be read as extending not merely to the formation of the association as such,
but to the effective functioning of the association so as to enable it to
E achieve its lawful objectives. Unless Article 19(1 )(c) were so read, the
freedom guaranteed would be illusory and the Court should, in construing
a freedom guaranteed to the citizen, give him an effective right. In short,
the submission was that the right guaranteed under sub-clause (c) of clause
(l) of Article 19 was not merely, as its text would indicate, the right to
F form an association, but would include the functioning of the association
without any restraints not dictated by the need for preserving order or the
interests of morality. The Constitution Bench discarded.the argument as
without force and held - "the restriction imposed by Section 6 of the Act
is for the purpose of recognition and no association is compelled to apply
to the Government for recognition under that Act. An application for the
G recognition of the association for the purpose of functioning under the
enactment is a voluntary act on the part of the association and ifthe statute
imposes conditions subject to which alone recognition could be accorded
or continued, it is a little difficult to see how the freedom to form the
association is affected unless, of course, that freedom impl~es or involves
H a guaranteed right to recognition also."
DHARAM DUTT v. U.0.1. [LAHOTI, J.] 177
I

30. The applicability of A11icle 19 of the Constitution came to be A
examined from yet another angle in The Tata Engineering and Locomotive
Co. Ltd. & Anr. v. The State and Ors., [1964] 6 SCR 885. Corporations
and companies moved the Supreme Cou11 alleging violation of their
fundamental right under A11icle 19 of the Constitution. Articles 19( I )(c)
and 19( 1)(g) came up for considerat1on. Their Lordships held that Article B
19 applies to 'citizens' and not to 'persons' as Article 14 does. The effect
of confining Article 19 to citizens as distinguished from persons, is that
protection under Article I 9 can be claimed only by citizens and not by
corporations or companies. The· attempt of the petitioners to claim the
benefit of Article 19 by piacing reliance on the doctrine of lifting the C
corporate veil and submitting that the corporation or the company consists
of its members and what is adversely affected is their fundamental right,
was rejected by the Cou11. The Constitution Bench held that the fundamental
right to form an association cannot be coupled with the fundamental right
to earl)' on any trade or business. As soon as citizens form a company,
the right guaranteed to them by Article I 9( I)( c) has been exercised and D
no restraint has been placed on that right and no infringement of that right
is made. Once a company or a corporation is formed, the business which
is carried on by the said company or corporation is the business of the
company or corporation, and is not the business of the citizens who get
the company or corporation formed or incorporated, and the rights of the E
incorporated body must be judged on that footing alone and cannot be
judged on the assumption that they are the rights attributable to the business
of individual citizens. In our opinion, the same principle as has been
applied to companies and corporations would apply to a society registered
under the Societies Registration Act, 1860.
F
3 I. In Azeez Basha v. Union of India, [I 968] 1 SCR 833, this Court
has held that Article I 9(1 )(c) does not give any right to any citizen to
manage any pa11icular educational institution and it only gives the right to
a citizen to form associations or unions.
G
32. In D.A. V. College, Jullundur etc. v. The State of Punjab and Ors.,
[1971] 2 sec 269, the impugned legislation provided for compulsory
affiliation of religious or linguistic minority institutions to the University.
It was contended that the compulsory affiliation of the petitioners to the
University affects their fundamental 'right of freedom of association' as H
178 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A guaranteed under Article 19(l)(c). It w..-.:; held that the Notification
providing for compulsory affiliation of the educational institution with the
University did not in any manner interfere or attempt to interfere with the
petitioners' right to form an association under Article 19(l)(c).

B 33. A Full Bench (five-Judges) decision by the Andhra Pradesh High
Court in Seethapathi Nageswara Rao & Ors. v. The Government of A.P.
& Ors., AIR (1978) A.P. 121 (F.B.), is relevant and we are inclined to make
a reference to the same. The statutory provision impugned therein was one
which provided for merger, amalgamation or liquidation of co-operative
societies. The non-viable societies could be merged or amalgamated with
C the viable societies. It was urged that the forcible dumping of the members
of the non-viable societies where such· societies are merged with viable
societies, violates the rights of the members of the viable societies. It was
submitted that a viable society is one voluntarily formed by the members
of that society ~nd it is for them to decide whether they would admit other
D members of non-viable societies or not. The members of a non-viable
society cannot be forced upon them against their will. It was also submitted
that when a non-viable society is merged with a viable society, the share
value in a viable society would drop down and this would adversely affect
their fundamental rights under sub-clauses (f) and (g) of clause (I) of
E Article 19 and Article 31 of the Constitution. The Full Bench rejected the
argument as one of absolutely no merit and held that merger does not affect
the right to form an association. The effect of merger is regulating the
business activity of the society and not the right of the members to form
an association. The merger or liquidation is a reasonable restriction
imposed on the business activity of th"e co-operative society by regulating
F its trade or business activity which would be protected by clause (6) of
Article 19. The High Court drew a distinction between the right of a person
to form an association and the right of such association to carry a business
activity.

G 34. Before the Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court; a
Division Bench decision of the High Court of Patna in Harakh Bhagat and
Anr. v. Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Barh, and Ors., AIR
(1968) Patna 211, was cited and it was followed. Following the Jaw laid
down by the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of The Tata
H Engineering and Locomotive Co.Ltd. (supra) the Division Bench upheld
DHARAM DUTT v. U.0.1. [LAHOTl, J.] 179

the validity of a legislative provision providing for compulsory amalgamation A
of co-operative societies in certain situations, and held that the provision
did not violate the fundamental right of the members of the Societies under
Article 19( 1)(c) of the c;onstitution.

35. The scheme of A1iicle 19 shows that a group of rights are listed
as clauses (a) to (g) and are recognized as fundamental rights conferred
B'
on citizens. All the rights do not stand on a common pedestal but have
varying dimensions and underlying philosophies. This is clear from the
drafting of clauses (2) to (6) of Article 19. The framers of the Constitution
could ha".e made a common draft of restrictions which were permissible
to be imposed on the operation of the fundamental rights listed in clause C
(1), but that has not been done. The common thread that runs throughout
sub-clauses (2) to (6) is that the operation of any existing law or the
enactment by the State of any law which imposes reasonable restrictions
to achieve certain objects, is saved; however, the quality and content of
such law would be different by reference to each of the sub-clauses (a) to D
(g) of clause (I) of Article 19 as can be tabulated hereunder :

Article 19
..
Clause (1) Clauses (2) to (6)
Nature of Right Permissible Restrictions E
By existing law or by law made
by State imposing reasonable
restrictions, in the interests of

(a) Freedom of speech (i) the sovereignty and integrity of India I

and expression (ii) the security of the State F
(iii) friendly relations with Foreign States
(iv) public order, decency or morality I

(v) in relation to contempt of court,
defamation or incitement to an offence

(b) right to assemble (i) the sovereignty and integrity of India I
G
peaceably and (ii) public order
without arms
I
(c) right of form asso- (i) the sovereignty and integrity of India
ciations or unions (ii) public order or morality
H
180 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003) SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A (d) & (e) right to move (i) the general public
freely and/or to reside (ii) the protection of the interests of
and settle through out Scheduled Tribe
the territory of India

(g) right to practise any The general public and in particular any
B profession, or to carry law relating to
on any occupation, (i) the professional or technical qualifica-
trade of business tions necessa1y for practising of any
profession or carrying on any
occupation, trade or business
c (ii) the canying on by the state, or by a
corporation owned or controlled by
the State, of any trade, business,
indust1y or service, whether to the
exclusion, complete or partial, of
D citizens or otherwise.

36. Article 19 confers fundamental rights on citizens. The rights
conferred by Article 19(1) are not available to and cannot be claimed by
any person who is not and cannot be a citizen of India. A statutory right
E - as distinguished from a fundamental right - conferred on persons or
· citizens is capable of being deprived of or taken away by legislation. The
. fundamental rights cannot be taken away by any legislation; a legislation
can only impose reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right. Out
of the several rights enumerated in clause (I) of Article 19, the right at sub-
clause (a) is not merely a right of speech and expression but a right to
F freedom of speech and expression. The enumeration of other rights is not
by reference to freedom. In the words of the then Chief Justice Patanjali
Sastri (In State of West Bengal v. Subodh Gopal Bose & Ors., [1954] SCR
587) these rights are great and basic rights which are recognized and
guaranteed as the natural rights, inherent in the status of a citizen of a free
G country. Yet, there cannot be any liberty absolute in nature and uncontrolled
in operation so as to confer a right wholly free from any restraint. Had
there been no restraints, the rights and freedoms may tend to become the
synonyms of anarchy and disorder. The founding fathers of the Constitution,
therefore, conditioned the enumerated rights and freedoms reasonably and
H such reasonable restrictions are found to be enumerated in clauses (2) to
DHARAM DUTT v. U.0.1. [LAHOTI, J.] 1$1

(6) of Article 19 excepting for sub-clauses (i) and (ii) of clause (6), tqe A
laws falling within which descriptions are immune from attack on the
exercise of legislative power within their ambit (See: HC. Narayanappa
& Ors. v. State of Mysore & Ors., [1960] 3 SCR 742).

37. The Court, confronted with a challenge to the constitutional
validity of any legislative enactment by reference to Article 19 of th~ B
Constitution, shall first ask what is the sweep of the fundamental right
guaranteed by the relevant sub-clause out of sub-clauses (a) to (g) of clause
(I). If the right canvassed falls within the sweep and expanse of any of
the sub-clauses of clause (I), then the next question to be asked would be,
whether the impugned law imposes a reasonable restriction falling with the C
scope of clauses (2) to (6)· respectively. However, if the right sought to
be canvassed does not fall within the sweep of the fundamental rights but
is a mere concomitant or adjunct or expansion or incidence of that right,
then the validity thereof is not to be tested by reference to clauses (2) to
(6). The test which it would be required to satisfy for its constitutional D
validity is one of reasonableness, as propounded in the case of V.G. Row
(supra) or if it comes into conflict with any other provision of the
Constitution.

38. The learned Additicnal Solicitor General, Shri ~aju Ramachandran,
placed implicit reliance on the decision of this Court in L.N. Mishra E
Institute of Economic Development and Social Change, Patna v. State
of Bihar & Ors., [1988] 2 SCC 433, and submitted that the said case has
a close resemblance to the facts of the present case and provides a complete
answer to the plea raised on behalf of the petitioners.
F
39. In L.N. Mishra's case (supra) the Institute - Lalit Narain Mishra
Institute of Economic Development and Social Change, Patna, was started
by a Society. The name of the Institute and the name of the Society were
the same. On April 19, 1986, the State Government of Bihar promulgated
Ordinance No.15 of 1986; whereby the possession of the Institute was
taken over by the S~te Government on that very day. The constitutional G
validity of the Ordinance was challenged alleging that it was promulgated
and the Institute was taken over at the instance of the then Chief Minister,
actuated by ma/a jides. The Ordinance was later replaced by an Act, the
constitutional validity whereof was also challenged on identical grounds.
The preamble to the Act stated the need to nationalize private education H
I

,
182 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003) SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A relating to business management in view of a very good possibility of a
rapid industrial and economic development of the State of Bihar. The
nationalization was proposed to be resolved in phases. The first phase
related to the taking over of the Institute. The challenge was founded on
violation of Article 19(1 )(c) of the Constitution, subm'itting that the
B fundamental right to form an association was infringed. The management
'of the Society wa~ totally disp!aced and its composition changed. All assets
and properties were vested in the State Government and the Com.missioner
was deemed to have taken charge of the Institute. As all incidence of
ownership and management were taken. over by the State, what was le~
C to the Society was paper ownership and management. Turning down the
challenge, this Court held that the impugned Ordinance and the Act merely
took over the Institute. Although, the name of the Society and of the
Institute are the same, they were two different entities. The impugned
legislations took over the Institute and not the Society. No restriction
whatsoever was imposed on the functioning of the Society. The provisions
D of the Act referred to the Institute. The Institute constituted one of the
activities of the Society. The petitioner~Society had constituted itself into
an association in exercise of the fundamental right conferred by Article
19( I)( c ). That right of that Society remains unimpaired and uninterfered
with by the impugned Act and Ordinance.
E
40. The Court further held that-"There can be no doubt that the
Institute has been taken over by the provisions of the Ordinance and the
Act. It is true that with the taking over of the Institute, the Society lost
its right of management and control ·of the Institute, but that is the
F consequence of all acquisitions. When a property is acquired, the owner
loses all control, interest and ownership of the property. Similarly the
Society, which was the owner of the Institute, has lost all control and
ownership of the Institute. It may be equally true that the. Institute was
the only activity of the Society, but we are concerned with the right of the
Society to form an association. So long as there is no interference with
G the Society, its constitution or composition, it is difficult to say that because
of the taking over or acquisition of the Institute, which was the only
property or activity of the Society, the fundamental right of the Society to
form an association has been infringed." The Court clarified- "the
composition of the Society has not been touched at all. All that has been
H done is to nationalize the Institute of the Society by the acquisition of the
DHARAM DUTT v. U.0.1. [LAHOTI, J.] 183

assets and prope1ties relating to the Institute. The Society may constitute A
its governing body in accordance with its rules without any interference
by the government."

41. The Court also tested the validity of the submission that the right
of citizens to form associations or unions within the meaning of Article
19 (l)(c) of the Constitution should be given the widest operation and any B
law which infringes upon the wide swtep of the right must satisfy the test
of Article 19(4), which saves only such laws which impose in the interests
of the sovereignty and integrity of India or public order or morality the
reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by Section
19(1 )(c). Reliance was placed on All India Bank Employees' Association C
v. National Industrial Tribunal, (1962] 3 SCR 269 and the Court concluded
that the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19( 1)(c) does not carry
with it a further guarantee that the objects or purposes or activities of an
association so formed shall not be interfered with by law except on grounds
as mentioned in Article 19(4 ). In sum, the Court rejected the contention D
on behalf of the Society that because of the acquisition of the institute the
society lost its right of management over the institute, and as the institute
was the main or the only activity of the society, the impugned legislations
interfered with the right of the society to form and continue the association
and are as such unconstitutional and void.
E
42. In S.P. Mittal v. Union of India & Ors., [1983] 1 SCC 51, the
disciples and devoted followers of Sri Aurobindo formed the Aurobindo
Society in Calcutta and got it registered as a Society with the object of
preaching and propagating the ideals and teachings of Sri Aurobindo and
the Mother. The Society for its Auroville project received grants and F
subventions from UNESCO and also from the Government of India.
However, after the death of the Mother, complaints started pouring in with
the Central Government which, on enquiry, revealed mismanagement of
the affairs of the Society, misuse of the funds thereof and diversion of the
funds meant for Auroville to other purposes. There was in-fighting
between the groups of members and the situation went out of contwl. The G
Auroville (Emergency Provisions) Ordinance, 1980, was promulgated
followed by an Act, whereby the management of Auroville was taken over,
though for a limited period. The constitutional validity of the Act was
challenged on the ground that A1ticles 25, 26, 29 and 30 and also Article
14 were infringed; and that the Parliament had no legislative competence H
184 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003) SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A to enact the said Act. Turning down the challenge on all the grounds, the
Constitution Bench held, inter alia, that assuming but not holding that the
Society or Auroville were a religious denomination, the impugned Act was
not hit by Article 25 or 26. It does not curtail the freedom of conscience
and the right to freely profess, practise and propagate one's own religion.
B "The right of management in matters ofreligion ofa religious denomination"
under Article 26(b) was not taken away; what was taken away was the right
of management of the property of Auroville which was a secular matter.
So also the Act did not cmtail the right of anY section of citizens to
conserve its own language, script or culture conferred by Article 29. An
activity, secular in nature, though assumed to be of the Society or the
C organization to be of religious denomination, did not adversely affect the
freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practise and
propagate one's own religion. The Constitution Bench has drawn a
distinction between such activities of the institution which would necessarily
fall within the purview of Article 25, 26 or 29 .and an individual activity
D which would fall outside the purview of these Articles.

43. The Preamble to the Act declares the Indian Council of World
Affairs (ICWA) to be an institution of na5ional importance and to provide
for its incorporation. The same declaration is contained in the body of the
E Act vide Section 2. The pre-existing society- ICWA and the new body
corporate, also given the name of ICWA, bear a similarity of names. Yet,
it is clear that the impugned Act only deals with ICWA the pre-existing
body and ICWA the body corporate under the impugned Act. The new
body takes over the activities of the pre-existing society by running the
institution which too is known as ICW A. So far as the society ICWA is
F concerned, it has been left intact, untouched and un-interfered with. There
is no tampering with the membership or the governing body of the society.
The society is still free to carry on its other activities. No membership of
the old society has been dropped. No new member has been forced or
thrust upon the society. The impugned legislation nominates members who
G will be members of the council, the new body corporate, different from
the society. The pith and substance of the impugned legislation is to take
over an institution of national importance. As the formation of the society,
which is a voluntary asc:;ociation, is not adversely affected and the members
of the society are free to continue with such association, the validity of the
H impugned legislation cannot be tested by reference to Sub-Clauses (a) and
DHARAM DUTT v. U.0.I. [LAHOTI, .1.) 185

(c) of Clause (I) of Article 19. The activity of the society which was being ,A
conducted through the institution ICWA has been adversely affected and
to that extent the validity of the legislation shall have to be tested by
reference to sub-Clause (g) of Clause (I) of Article 19. The activity was
of the society and the Society cannot claim a fundamental right. Even
otherwise the impugned legislation is a reasonable legislation enacted in B
the interest of the general public and to govern an institution of national
impottance. It is valid.

44. Sarva Shri P.P. Rao and Ashok Nigam, the learned senior counsel
for the petitioners have placed strong reliance on two decisions of this
Court, namely, Smt. Damyanti Naranga & Anr. v. The Union of India C
and Ors., [1971] (3) SCR 840 and Asam Rashtrabhasha Prachar Samiti,
Hedayatpur-Gauhati-3 and Anr. v. State of Assam and Ors., [1989)
(Supp.) SCR 160. In Smt. Damyanti Naranga's case (Supra) the
Constitution Bench ruled that the right to form an association includes not
only a right of forming an association to b.egin with, but also the right to D
continue to be associated with only those whom they voluntarily admit in
the association. Once the citizens have formed any association voluntarily
then without any option being given to the members, neither can their
membership be taken away nor can they be compelled to associate
themselves with members with whom they do not want to associate. The E
const_itutional validity of the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Act, 1962, was
successfully challenged. A perusal of the judgment shows that the
impugned legislation created a statutory body called 'The Hindi Sahitya
Sammelan'. The existence of the original Sammelan was terminated,
which resulted in violating the right of members of the original Sammelan
to form an association as guaranteed by Article I 9(1)(c), and this was the F
main thrust of attack which dominated the Court's opinion. All the existing
members of the original Sammelan were made members of the new
Sammelan and many outsiders were also made members thereof by the Act.
The new members which were enrolled or could be enrolled, were entitled
to be admitted without the consent of the original members of the G
Sammelan. Thus, the members of the old Sammelan came under compulsion
to associate and unite involuntarily with such persons as they did not wish
to do. The property of the original Sammelan was taken away and vested
in the new Sammelan. The case is, therefore, distinguishable and not
applicable to the facts of the present case, where the original society has H
186 SUPREME COURT REPOR,.TS [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A been left intact and untouched. These distinguishing features were noted
also by the Constitution Bench in the case of D.A. V. College, Jullundur,
(supra) and the ratio of Smt. Damyant~ Naranga 's case (supra) was held
inapplicable.

B 45. However, even in Smt. Damyanti Naranga 's case (supra), the
Constitution Bench has held that after an association has been formed and
the right under Article 19( I)( c) has been exercised by the members fonning
it, they have no right to claim that its activities must also be permitted to
be carried on in the manner they desire.
"
C 46. In the case. of Asam Rastrabhasa Prachar Samiti (supra), the
impugned Act was enacted to nK ~t a temporary contingency for taking .,
over of the management of the P1achar Samiti temporarily. However, it
failed to make any provision for the restoration of the elected body in due
course. Not only were new members introduced into the Samiti, no norms
D were laid down for nominating the government nominees (who could be
any one), and the elected members were kept away from the control of the
Samiti. On the peculiar facts of the case and the implications of the
provisions contained in the impugned enactment the Court·concluded that
the right of association was virtually taken away and in the name of
E temporary control and management on the affairs of the society, what was
done was a permanent deprivation. In response to a query raised by the
Court it was stated by the State before the Court that the State had no desire
to restore the Samiti. The im_pugned legislative provision was, therefore,
struck down as violative of Article 19(l)(c) of'the Constitution. Asam
F Rashtrabhasha Ptachctr Samiti 's case (supra) is ·a three-Judge Bench
decision and the only decision referred to therein is the case of Smt.
Damyanti Naranga 's case (supra). Though Article 14 has not been referred
to in the judgment by specifically mentioning it, it is clear from the
judgment that this Court has also formed an opinion that the action of the
G State. was arbitrary and unreasonable, and so was liable to be struck down.

4 7. Both the decisions re lied on by the learned senior counsel for the
petitioners are distinguishable and do not apply to the present case.

48. It is well-settled that while de~ling with a challenge to the
H constitutional validity of any legislation, the court should prima facie Jean
DHARAM DUTT v. U.0.1. [LAHOTI, J.) 187

in favour of constitutionality and should support the legislation, if it is A
possible to do so, on any reasonable ground and it is for the party who
attacks the validity of the legislation to place all materials before the Court
which would make out a case for invalidating the legislation. [see :
Charan) it Lal Chowdhury v. 'Fhe Union of India & Ors., I 950 SCR 869
and Ayurvedic and Unani Tibia College, Delhi (supra)]. B
49. In spite of there being a general presumption in favour of the
constitutionality of the legislation, in a challenge laid to the validity of any
legislation allegedly violating any right or freedom guaranteed by Clause
(I) of Article 19 of the Constitution, on aprimafacie case of such violation
having been made out, the onus would shift upon the respondent State to C
show that the legislation comes within the permissible limits of the most
relevant out of Clauses (2) to (6) of Article 19 of the Constitution, and that
the restriction is reasonable. The Constitutional Court would expect the
State to place before it sufficient material justifying the restriction and its
reasonability. On the State succeeding in bringing the resti:iction within D
.the scope of any of the permissible restrictions, such as, the sovereignty
and integrity of India or public order, decency or morality etc." the onus
of showing that restriction is unreasonable would shift back to the
petitioner. Where the restriction on its face appears to be unreasonable,
nothing more would be required to substantiate the plea ofunreasonability. E
Thus the onus of proof in such like cases is an on-going shifting 'process
to be consciously observed by the court called upon to decide the
constitutional validity of a legislation by reference to Article 19 of the
Constitution. The questions: (i) Whether the right claimed is a fundamental
right, (ii) whether the restriction is one contemplated by any of the Clauses
(2) to (6) of Article 19, and (iii) whether the restriction is reasonable or F
unreasonable, are all questions which shall have to be decided by keeping
in view the substance of the legislation and not being beguiled by the mere
appearance of the legislation.

50. The impugned Act does not offend the right guaranteed by Article G
19(l)(c). It also does not in any manner Q.eprive the members of the Society
of their freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(l)(a).

Scrutiny by reference to Article 300A

51. It was submitted that the impugned legislation is violative of H
188 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A Article 300A of the Constitution inasmuch as it unreasonably deprives the
petitioners of the property vesting in the society. In this context, a
reference to a Constitution Bench decision of this Court would be apposite
which deals with the right to acquire, hold and dispose of property under
Article 19( l )( f) (since repealed) though not on all the fours with the facts
B of this case. Board of Trustees, Ayurvedic and Unani Tibia College, Delhi
v. State of Delhi (Now Delhi Administration) & Anr., [ 1962] Supp. (I)
SCR 156, projects principles which would be relevant for our purpose. An
individual founded a pharmaceutical institute known as 'Hindustani
Dawakhana'. He also established a medical college known as 'The Tibbia
C College'. He then formed a society with a few members along with himself
~-
and registered the same under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The
Society was known as the Board of Trustees, Ayurvedic and Unani Tibbia
College, Delhi, ('the Board' for short). The Board was operating the Tibbia
College, an attached hostel and a phannaceutical institute. Disputes arose
within the trustees which led to filing of civil suits. The Court appointed
.o receivers who took possession of the Dawakhana and the College. The
Delhi State Legislature passed an Act called 'The Tibbia College Act,
1952' which came into force on October 10, 1952. The old Board stood
dissolved and all property, movable and immovable, and all rights, powers
and privileges of the Board came to vest in a new Board constituted under
E the Act. This new Board was called the Tibbia College Board. The civil
suits were withdrawn and the Court directed the possession over the
properties and institutions to be handed over to the new Board. The old
Board filed a civil revision in the High Court of Punjab and thereafter a
petition under Article 32 of the Constitution in this Court, impugning the j-
F constitutional validity of the Act mainly on two grounds, namely, that the
Delhi State Legislature had no legislative power or competence to enact
the impugned Act and that, assuming that the Delhi State Legislature had
the legislative competence, the Act was still bad as being violative of
Articles 14, 19 and 31 of the Constitution. Incidentally, it was also
contended that the Act passed by the Delhi State Legislature could not \ -

G override the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, which is
a Centr~l legislation. According to the State of Delhi, the field of
legislation was covered by List II (State List) Item 32 which reads as under:

"32. Incorporation, regulation and winding up of corporations,
H other than those specified in List I, and universities; un-incorporated

J-

'
DHARAM DUTT v. U.0.1. [LAHOTI, J.] 189

trading, literary, scientific, religious and other societies and A
associations; co-operative societies."

52. The Constitution Bench held that a society could not be equated
with a corporation as a society cannot be said to be 'incorporated' as a
corporation is. Under Section 5 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, B
the property belonging rn the society, if not vested in trustees, shall be
deemed to be vested in the governing body of the society and in all
proceedings, civil and criminal, the property will be described as being the
property of the governing body. The expression "property belonging to
the Society" does not give the Society a corporate status in the matter of C
holding and acquiring property; it merely describes the property which
vests in the trustees or governing body for the time being.

53. It was held that the impugned legislation while creating the new
Board has given it a corporate status, confining its powers and duties to
the college, pharmaceutical institute and laboratory in Delhi. It fell within D
the purview of Entry 32 of List II. Dealing with the submission based on
Article 31(2) ofthe Constitution (as it then stood), the Court held that the
impugned legislation does not relate to nor does it provide for compulsory
acquisition of property for a public purpose. The impugned legislation
provides for the transfer of the management of the Ayurvedic and Unani E
Tibbia College, Delhi, from the old Board to a new Board, and for that
purpose the old Board was dissolved and a new Board was created with
certain rights, powers and privileges to be applied for the exercise of
powers and the performance of duties as laid down in the Act. Such
legislation could not be tested under Article 31(2) or the tests emerging F
therefrom.

54. Dealing with the submission made by reference to the repealed
Article l 9(l)(f), the fundamental right to acquire, hold and dispose of
property, the Court held that
G
"During the subsistence of the society, the right of the members
was to ensure that the property was utilized for the charitable
objects set out in the memorandum and these did not include any
beneficial enjoyment. Nor did the members of the society acquire
any beneficial interest on the dissolution of the society; for Section H
190 . SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A 14 of the Act, quoted earlier, expressly negatived the right of the
members to any distribution of' the assets of the dissolved body.
In such an event the property had to be given over to some other
society, i.e., for being managed by some other charitable
organization and to be utilized for like purposes, and the only right
of the members was to determine the society to whom the funds
B
or property might be transferred and this had to be done by not
less than three-fifths of the members present at the meeting for
the purpose and, in default of such determination, by the civil
court. The effect of the impugned legislation is to vary or affect
this privilege of the members and to vest the property in·a new
c body created by it enjoined to administer it so as to serve the same
purposes as the dissolved society. The only question is whether
the right to detennine the body which shall administer the funds
or property of the dissolved society which they had under the pre-
existing law is a right to 'acquire, hold and dispose of property'
D within the meaning of Article 19(1)(f), and if so whether the
legislation is not saved by Article 19(5). We are clearly of the
opinion that that right is not a right of pr~perty within the meaning
of Article 19(1 )(f). In the context in which the words 'to dispose
of occur in Article 19{l){f), they denote that kind of property
E which a citizen has a right to hold. Where however the citizen
has no right to hold the property, for on the terms of Section 14
of the Societies Registration Act. the members have no right to
'hold' the property of the dissolved society, there is, in our
opinion, no infringement of any right to .property within the
meaning of Article 19( 1)( f). In this view the question as to
F whether the impugned enactment satisfies the requirements of
Article 19(5) does not fall to be determined.

The Court concluded by holding that the Delhi State Legislature did not
transgress any of the limitations placed on it, by Article 19(5) when it
G enacted the impugned legislation.

55. The protection of Article 300A is. available to any person,
including a legal or jurisdic person and is not confined only to a citizen.
For more than one reason, we are not inclined to entertain this plea. Firstly,
H with the Forty-Fourth Amendment, w.e.f. June 20, 1979, Right to Property
DHARAM DUTI v. U.O.I. [LAHOTI, J.] 191

having ceased to be a fundamental right, we have grave doubts if the same A
can be sought to be enforced by a petition under Article 32 of the
Constitution. Secondly, we find that a case of violation of Article 300A
in the dimension in which it was sought to be canvassed is not taken up
in the writ petition. The Union of India has taken over the institution by
enacting a law which we have held to be within the legislative competence B
of the Parliament. Thirdly and lastly, the petition in that regard raises
disputed questions of facts. The Union of India do not admit title of the
petitioner either in the land or in the building or in any other property
claimed to be owned by the petitioners. There is not one document of title
produced by the petitioners in support of their claim to the property. Such C
highly disputed questions of fact which cannot be determined except on
evidence are not fit to be taken up for adjudication in the exercise of writ
jurisdiction. The exercise of testing the vires of the impugne.d legislation
by reference to Article 300A of the Constitution is uncalled for ·in the
present petition.
D
ls the impugned Act arbitrary and violative of Article 14?

56. Article 14 of the Constitution prohibits class legislation and not
reasonable classification for the purpose oflegislation. The requirements
of the validity of legislation by reference to Article 14 of the Constitution E
are : that the subject matter of legislation should be a well defined class
founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes that subject
matter from others left out, and such differentia must have a rational
relation with the bbject sought to be achieved by the legislation. The laying
down of i~telligible differentia does not, however, mean that the legislative
classification should be scientifically perfect or logically complete. F
57. We have already pointed out in an earlier part of this judgment
that in the present case successive parliamentary committees found substance
in the complaints received that an institution of national importance was
suffering from mismanagement and mal-administration. The Central G
Government acted on such findings. Circumstances warranting an emergent
action satisfied the President of India, resulting in his promulgating
ordinances which earlier could not culminate into legislative enactments
on account of fortuitous circumstances. At the end the Parliament exercised
its legislative power under Article 245 of the Constitution read with Entries H
192 SUPREME COURT REPORTS..[2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A 62 and 63 of List I. The legislation cannot be said to be arbitrary or
unreasonable.

58. It was further submitted that the provisions of the Societies
Registration Act, 1860 were effective enough which, if invoked, could
B have taken care of the alleged grievances. If there was any truth or
substance ·therein the same could have been found on enquiries being held.
In our opinion, in a given set of facts and circumstances, merely because
an alternative action under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 could have
served the purpose, a case cannot be and is not made out for finding fault
with another legislation if the same be within the legislative competence
c of the Parliament, which it is, as will be seen hereinafter.

59. A similar submission was made and repelled in S.P. Mittal's case
(supra). The contention there was that provisions in the Societies
Registration Act were available to meet the situation in Auroville and that
D the law and order situation could be controlled by reso1ting to provisions
of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Constitution Bench held -
"Whether the remedies provided under the Societies Registration Act were
sufficient to meet the exigencies of the situation is not for the Court but
for the Government to decide, and if the Government thought that the
E conditions prevailing in Auroville and the Society can be ameliorated ·not
by resorting to the provisions of the Societies Registration A~t but by a
special enactment, that is an area of the exercise of the discretion of the
Government and not of the Court." The Constitution Bench also observed
that assuming the facts brought to the notice of the legislature were wrong,
F it will not be open to the Court to hold the Act to be bad on that account.

60. It was then submitted that the institution ICWA was singled out
and though there were several other institutions run by societies or other
organizations which were in the grip of more serious mismanagement and
mat-administration, they were not even touched and the Parliament chose
G to legislate as to one institution only. This submission too holds no merit.
Firstly, no other institution is named or particularized so as to be
comparable with ICW A. Secondly, there can be a legislation in respect
of a single institution as is clear from the language itself of Entries 62 and
63 of List I. A single institution is capable of being treated as a class by
H itself for the purpose of legislation if there are special· circumstances or
DHARAM DUTT v. U.0.1. [LAHOTI, J.] 193

reasons which are applicable to that institution and such legislation would A
not incur the wrath of Article 14. In SP. Mittal (supra), the impugned
legislation brought with the object and purpose of taking away the
management of Auroville from the Aurobindo Society and to bring it under
the management of the Central Government under the provisions of the
impugned Act was held to be valid. The exercise of legislative power by B
Parliament was sought to be justified as falling within the field of Entry·
63 of List I. Their Lordships referred to several decisions wherein the
constitutional validity of similar legislations was upheld. In Ram Krishna
Dalmia v. Justice SR. Tendolkar, [1959] SCR 279, legislation relating to
a single 'individual', in Raja Birakishore v. State ofOrissa, (1964] 7 SCR C
32, legislation in respect of a single 'temple' and in Chiranjit Lal
Chowdhuri v. Union of India, [1950] SCR 869, a separate law enacted for
one company were held not to offend Article 14 of the Constitution on the
ground that there were special reasons for passing such legislation.

Effect of the previous judgment of High Court on the impugned legislation D

61. Having held that the impugned Act does not suffer from any
constitutional infirmity and does not violate Article 19( 1)(a) and (c) or
Article 300A of the Constitution, we may now proceed to examine by
reference to the doctrine of Separation of Powers what is the effect on the
impugned Act, of the judgment dated I 0.9.1990 delivered by a learned E
single Judge of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, annulling the 1990
Ordinance as constitutionally invalid. The submission of the learned
counsel for the petitioners is short and simple. It is submitted that an
"identically worded" Ordinance having been held to be unconstitutional
and the decision of the High Court holding so having achieved a finality, F
the Parliament could not have re-enacted the contents of the vitiated
Ordinance into an Act of Parliament. It was forcefully submitted that such
an enactment is violative of the doctrine of Separation of Powers and so
is liable to be annulled on this very ground.

62. The facts of this case are unusual. No precedent, parallel on facts, G
has been brought to our notice at the Bar though a host of decisions laying
down constitutional principles were cited, some of which we shall refer to
hereinafter.

63. Let us first state a few general principles relevant for upholding H
194 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A validity of enactments. In Shri Prithvi Cotton Mills Ltd. & Anr. v. Broach
Borough Municipality & Ors., (1969] 2 SCC 283, the imposition of a tax
was held to be invalid because the power to tax was wanting. A validation
.
Act was passed and its constitutionality was put in issue once again. The
.
Constitution Bench spoke a few words about validating statutes in general,
B as under:-
"When a, Legislature sets out to validate a tax declared by a court
to be illegally collected under an ineffective or an invalid law, the
cause for ineffectiveness or invalidity must be removed before
validation can be said to take place effectively. The most
c important condition, of course, is that the Legislature must possess
the power to impose the tax, for, if it does not, the action must
ever remain ineffective and illegal. Granted legislative competence,
it is not sufficient to declare merely that the decision of the Court
shall not bind for that is tantamount to reversing the decision in
D exercise of judicial power which the Legislature does not possess
or exercise. A court's decision must always bind unless the
conditions on which it is based are so fundamentally altered that
the decision could not have been given in the altered circumstances.
Ordinarily, a court holds a tax to be invalidly imposed because
E the.power to tax is wanting or the statute or the rules or both are
invalid or do not sufficiently create the jurisdiction. Validati.on
of a tax so declared illegal may be done only if the grounds of
illegality or invalidlty are capable of being removed and are in fact
removed and the tax is thus made legal. Sometimes this is done
F by providing for jurisdiction where jurisdiction had not been
properly vested before. Sometimes this is done by re-enacting
retrospectively a valid and legal taxing provision and then by
fiction making the tax already collected to stand under the re-
enacted law. Sometimes the Legislature gives its own meaning
G and interpretation of the law under which tax was collected and
by legislative fiat makes the new meaning binding upon courts.
The Legislature may follow any one method or all of them and
while it does so it may neutralise the effect of the earlier decision
of the court which becomes ineffective after the change of the Jaw.
H Whichever method is adopted it must be within the competence
DHARAM DUTT v. U.O.I. [LAHOTI, J.) 195

of the legislature and legal and adequate to attain the object of A
validation. If the Legislature has the power over the subject-
matter and competence to make a valid law, it can at any time
make such a valid law and make it retrospectively so as to bind
even past transactions. The validity ofa Validating Law, therefore,
depends upon whether the Legislature possesses the competence B
which it claims over the subject-matter and whether in making the
validation it removes the defect which the courts had found in the
existing law and makes adequate provisions in the Validating Law
for a valid imposition of the tax."

64. The Jaw, so laid down, was reiterated and approved by a Seven C
Judges Bench in Mis Misrilal Jain v. State of Orissa & Anr., [1977] 3 SCC
212. In Madan Mohan Pathak & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., [1978]
2 SCC 50 too Shri Prithvi Cotton Mills Ltd. case (supra) was cited and
considered. The law laid down by the seven Judges Bench leads one to
hold that if by reason of retrospective alteration of the factual or legal D
situation, the judgment is rendered erroneous, the constitutional validity of
the subsequent legislation is not available to be decided on the basis of the
previous judgment. The Constitution Bench in Union of India & Anr. v.
Raghubir Singh (Deadj by Lrs. etc., (1989] 2 SCC 754, observed that the
range of judicial review recognized in the superior judiciary of India is E
perhaps the widest and the most extensive known to the world of law and
then cautioned-" With the impressive expanse of judicial power vested in
them it is only right that the superior courts in India should be conscious
of their enormous responsibility". The Constitution Bench summed up the
effect of declaring an Act of legislation-in the case before us an F
Ordinance- on the revival of such Act, by stating that where a statute is
declared invalid in India it cannot be reinstated unless constitutional
sanction is obtained therefor by a constitutional amendment or an
appropriately modified version of the statute is enacted which accords with
constitutional prescription. A two Judges Bench of this Court in Indian G
Aluminium Co. & Ors. v. State of Kera/a & Ors., [l 996] 7 SCC 637, made
an exhaustive review of the available judicial opinion and summed up the
essence thereof in nine points, three of which are relevant for our purpose,
which we set out as under:-

(I) In order that rule of law permeates to fulfil constitutional H
196 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ['2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A objectives of establishing an egalitarian so~ial order, the
respective sovereign functionaries need free play in their
joints so that the march of social progress and order remains
unimpeded. The smooth balance built with delicacy must
always be maintained;
B
.(2) In its anxiety to safeguard judicial power, it is unnecessary
to be overzealous and conjure up incursion into the judicial
preserve invalidating the valid law competently made;

(3) The Court, therefore, needs to carefully scan the law to find
c out: (a) whether the vice pointed out by the court and
invalidity suffered by previous law is cured complying with
the legal and constitutional requirements; (b) whether the
legislature has competence to validate the law; (c) whether
such validation is consistent with the rights guaranteed in
D Part III of the Constitution."

65. Welfare Association A.R.P., Maharashtra & Anr. v. Rr:mjit P.
Gohil & Ors., JT (2003) 2 SC 335, is a decision to which both of us are
parties. Therein we have held that it is permissible for the legislature;
E subject to its legislative competence otherwise, to enact a law which will
withdraw or fundamentally alter the very basis on which a judicial
pronouncement has proceeded and create a situation which, if it had existed
earlier, the Court would not have made the pronouncement. Very recently
in People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) & Anr. v. Union of India &
F Anr., [2003] 4 sec 399, in the leading opinion recorded by M.B. Shah,
J. (the other two learned Judges having also recorded their separate but
concurring opinions), the legal position has been summarized thus:-

"the Legislature can change the basis on which a decision is
rendered by this Court and change the law in general. However,
G this power can be exercised subject to constitutional provisions,
particularly legislative competence and if it is violative of
fundamental rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution, such
Jaw would be void as provided under Article 13 of the Constitution.
The legislat~re also cannot declare any decision of a court of law
H to be void or of no effect."
DHARAM DUTT v. U.O.I. [LAHOTI, J.] 197

66. In Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Shri Raj Narain & Anr., [1975] A
Supp. SCC 1, Chandrachud, J., as His Lordship then was, cited with
approval the opinion of Harold Laski that the "separation of powers doe:;
not mean the equal balance of powers" and observed that "what cannot be
sustained is the exercise by the legislature of what is purely and indubitably
a judicial function. In our cooperative federalism there is no rigid B
distribution of powers; what is provided is a system of salutary checks and
balances".

67. With advantage, we may quote Justice Aharon Barak, President
of the Supreme Court of Israel. In the context of a new statute having been
enacted on the previous one having been annulled, the learned Chief Justice C
says- "Review of a new statute should focus not on the fact that it changes
the previous ruling of the court, but on the fact that it undermines
democracy. Moreover, everything is a question of degree. If the interpretation •
of a statute is met with an immediate and hasty response from the
legislature in the form of new legislation, uncertainty about the law will D
result, and the public will lose confidence in the legislative branch. This
is not the case, however, when the change in legislation after a judicial
ruling reflects a thorough and deliberate examination of the ruling and an
objective expression of the will of the legislature". (A Judge on Judging
: The Role of a Supreme Court in Democracy-President Aharon Barak, E
Harvard Law Review, Vol. 116, No. 1, November 2002, at p. 135). He
further states that "foundation of democracy is a legislature elected freely
and periodically by the people. Judges and legal scholars ought not to
forget this fundamental principle. The role of a judge in a democracy
recognizes the central role of the legislature. Undermining the legislature F
undermines democracy. My conception of the rule of law and of the
separation of powers do not undermine the legislature. Rather, they ensure
that all branches of state act within the framework of the constitution and
statutes. Only thus can we maintain public confidence in the legislature;
only thus can we preserve the dignity of legislation." He quotes Justice G
McLachlin as rightly saying that in democracies, "the elected legislators,
the executive and the courts all have their role to play. Each must play that
role in a spirit of profound respect for the other. We are not adversaries.
We are all in the justice business, together." (ibid, pp.136, 137).

68. The position in the present case is, of.course, a little different. We H
198 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A are not here dealing with the validity of a validating enactment. In the
judgment dated September 10, 1990 (C.W.P. No. 9120of1990) the High
Court (Bench presided over by the learned single-Judge) unfortunately,
unmindful of the correct width and expanse of the rights conferred by sub-
clauses (a) and (c) of clause (1) of Article 19 ofthe Constitution, did not
B correctly comprehend the scope of Article .19( 1) of the Constitution and
overlooked the fine distinction in the breach of rights complained of by
a citizen or citizens - collectively but as citizens, and the right to certain
activities claimed by an association. The High Court just confined itself
to finding whether the impugned ordinance could be saved by clauses (2)
C and (4)of Article 19, and if not, then it was unconstitutional, a!So because
it was too drastic and hence unreasonable. The High Court also went on
to say that as compensation was not pa!d for the property acquired, the
ordinance was arbitrary and discriminatory more so because it aimed only
at a particular society. While making this observation the High Court
D overlooked the fact that the ordinance aimed at the Institution and not at
the Society, though the nomenclature of the two was the same. The High
Court nowhere recorded a finding that any property either belonged to the
petitioners or was vested in them before it was taken away, and also did
not consider the affect of repeal of Articles 19(1 )(t) and 31 of the
E Constitution after which repeal the right to property had ceased to be a
fundamental right and the newly engrafted Article 300A of the Constitution
requires only authority of law for depriving any person or his property.

69. That decision of the learned Single Judge was not left unchallenged.
In fact, the correctness of the judgment of the learned single-Judge was
F put in issue by the Union of India by filing an intra-court appeal. Filing
of an appeal destroys the finality of the judgment under appeal. The issues
determined by the learned Single Judge were open for consideration before
the Division Bench. However, the Division Bench wa5 denied the
opportunity. of hearing and the aggrieved party could also not press for
G decision of the appeal on merits, as before the appeal could be heard it wa,s
rendered infructuous on account of the Ordinance itself having ceased to
operate. The Union oflndia, howsoever it may hav.e felt aggrieved by the
pronouncement of the learned single-Judge, had no remedy left available
to it to pursue. The judgment of the Division Bench refusing to dwell upon
H the correctness of the judgment of the Single Judge had the effect of leaving
DHARAM DUTI v. U.0.1. [LAHOTI, J.) 199

the matter at large. Upon the lapsing of the earlier Ordinance pending an A
appeal before a Division Bench, the judgment of the Single Judge about
the illegality of the earlier Ordinance, cannot any longer bar this Court from
deciding about the validity of a fresh law on its own merits, even if the
fresh law contains similar provisions.
B
70. Be that as it may, we are clearly of the opinion that the judgment
dated September I 0, 1990, is not correct and we specifically record our
overruling of the same. The doctrine of Separation of Powers and the
constitutional convention·of the three organs of the State, having regard
and respect for each other, is enough answer to the plea raised on behalf
of the petitioners founded on the doctrine of Separation of Powers. We C
cannot strike down a legislation which we have on an independent scrutiny
held to be within the legislative competence of the enacting legislature
merely because the legislature has re-enacted the same legal provisions into
an Act which, ten years before, were incorporated in an ord.inance and were
found to be unconstitutional in an erroneous judgment of the High Court D
and before the error could be corrected in appeal the Ordinance itself
lapsed. It has to be remembered that by the impugned Act the Parliament
has .not overruled the judgment of the High Court nor has it declared the
same law to be valid which has been pronounced to be void by the court.
It would have been better ifbefore passing the Bill into an Act the attention E
of the Parliament was specifically invited to t~e factum of an earlier pari
materia Ordinance having been annulled by the High Court. If an
ordinance invalidated by the High Court is still reenacted into an Act after
the pronouncement by the High Court, the subsequent Act would be liable
to be annulled once again on finding that the High Court was right in taking
the vi~w of the illegality of the Ordinance, which it did. However, as we F
have already stated, this is not the position obtaining in the present case.
The impugned Act is not liable to be annulled on the ground of violation
of the doctrine of Separation of Powers.

Impugned Act covered by Entries 62, 63 of List I of Schedule - 7 G
I
71. The challenge to the constitutional validity of the impugned Act
fails on all the grounds alleged. The legislation is clearly covered by
Entries 62 and 63 of List I Schedule 7. Initially at one time, the institution
was receiving financial aid from the Government oflndia. The institution H
200 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A ICWA has been declared to be an 'institution of national import~nce' by
the Act of Parliament. There is no challenge to the validity of such
declaration nor do we find any grounds to take a view different from the
one taken in the declaration made by the Government of India. Once an
institution is declared to be of national importance, the Parliament is
B competent to make any law governing the management, administration and
affai-rs of such an institution. It is not the case of the petitioners that though
the institution is declared and held to be of national importance, yet in
enacting other provisions of the impugned Act, the Parliament has
encroached upon any field oflegislation not available to it. The provisions
of the Act fall within the field of legislation meant for the Union of India.
c
72. The various Entries in the three Lists of the Seventh Sc.hedule are
legislative heads defining the fields of legislation and should be liberally
and 'Y.~dely interpreted. Not only the main matter but also any incidental
and ancillary matters are available to be included within the field of the
D entry. The settled rules of interpretation governing the Entries do not
countenance any narrow and pedantic interpretation. The judicial opinion
is for giving a large and liberal interpretation to the :;cope of the Entries.
Suffice it to quote from the opinion of the judicial committee of the Privy
Council in British Coal Corporation v. The King, AIR (1935) PC 158, 162
-that in interpreting a constituent or organic statute indeed that construction
E which is most beneficial to the widest possible amplitude of its powers must
be adopted. The Federal Court in the United Provinces v. Atiqa Begum,
AIR ( 1941) FC 16, 25 observed that none of the items in the Lists is to
be read in a narrow or restricted sense .and all ancillary or subsidiary
matters referable to the words used in the Entry and which can fairly and
F reasonably be said to be comprehended therein are to be read in the Entry.
This approach has been countenanced in several decisions of this Court.
(To wit, see Navinchandra Mafatlal v. CIT Bombay City, [1955] l SCR
829, 836; Sri Ram Ram Narain Medhi v. The State of Bombay, [1959]
Supp. (I) SCR 989.)

G Conclusion
The writ petition is dismissed with costs.

N.J. W.P. (C) No. 276 of 2001 disposed of.
W.P. (C) No. 543 of 2001 dismissed.