# [1975] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 151 - **Citation:** [1975] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 151 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1975-04-18 - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/1975-supp-1-s-c-r-151-6454 - **Pages:** 18 ## Headnote J KRISHNA CHANDRA QANGOPADHYAYA ETC. T, UNION OF INDIA & QlRS. April 18, 1975 [A. N. RAY, C. J., K. K. MATHEW AND V. R. KRISHNA IYER] Constitution of India-Seventh Schedule, List I Item 54, List Tl Item 23. Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1951---!Section 15- ~ihar Land Refonns Act 1950 [Section 10(2)]-Bihar Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1964 [Rule 20(2)). Interpretation of Statutes-Validation Act-Retrospecti've effect-Delegated Legislation-Legislation by incorporation. This Court in the case .of Baij Nath Kedia declared the seoond proviso to secti.on 10(2) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950. unconstitutional on the ground that the Bihar Legislature had no jurisdiction to enact it and that Parliament alone was competent to legislate. Th~s Court a1'o held that rule 20(2) framed by the Bihar Government as delegate of the Parliament under section 15 of the Mines and Minerals (RegUlation and Development) Act Of 19 57 was unconstitutional since the rule making power 'Conferred by .section 15 of the Central Act did not contemplate nlteration of terms of leases already in existence before the Act was passed. Second proviso to section 10(2) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act reads as under : "Provided further that the tenns and conditions of the said lease in regard to minor minerals as defined in the Mines and Mi...,erals IRegnlation and Development) Act, 1957 (Act LXVII of 1957) shall, in &0 far as they are inconsistent with the rules of that Act, stand substituted by the corresponding terms and conditions by those rules and if further ascertainment and settlement of the terms will become necessary then necessary proceedings for that purpose shall be undertaken by the Collector." Rule 20(2) authorises the alteration of the terms of leases which were in exiStence before the Central Act was passed. After the judgment in Baij Nath Kedia's case was delivered, the Parliament passed a Validation Act of 1969. Section 2 ( 1) and (2) of the Validation Act reads as under : lSl 11. c D 11 "21(1). The laws specified in the Schedule shall be and shall be G deemed always to have been, as valid as if the provisions contained therein had been enacted by Parliament. 2(2). Notwithstan~ing any judgment, decree or order of any court, all actions taken, things done, rules made, notifications issued or purported to have been taken, done, made or issued and rents or royalties realised under any such laws shall be deemed to have been yalidl_Y take!1, done, made, . issued or realised, as the case may be, as H if tbIS section had been 1n force at all material times when such notifications, were issued, or rents or royalties were realised, and no suit or other prceedings shall be maintained or continued in any court for the refund of rents or royalties realised under any such laws." \ (q the Schedule to the said Validation Act, section 10 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 and sub-rule (2) of Rule 20 of the Bihar Minor Mineral f~oneellsion Rules, 1%4, inter alia, have been set out. IO SC/75-ll SUPREME COURT IUlPOR.TS 0975] SUPP. S.C.lt. In the present petition under Article 32, validity of the Validation has been challenged by the petitioner on the grounds Act ."If. a law is void as being pa&Sed by an incompetent Legislature) validation by a subsequent Act passed by a competent J..egislature can only be effected by the subsequent Jaw enacting the provisions of the old Act expressly or by incorporation. It cannot be done by a competent Legislature, laying down in the subsequent Act that the former B Act passed by the incompetent Legislature is deemed to be valid. D ·E F G H No liability to levy rent or royalty can be created retroactively without ~wo. ~lear stages or ste~: firstly, a law must be enacted creating the habihty; next, such provISion should be made retrospective. This two-stage procedure is absent in the statute under attack and therefore the purpose, whatever it be, has misfired." The respondent contended that the Parliament ad ## Text _Characters 0–39,980 of 52,095. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39980 for what follows._ J KRISHNA CHANDRA QANGOPADHYAYA ETC. T, UNION OF INDIA & QlRS. April 18, 1975 [A. N. RAY, C. J., K. K. MATHEW AND V. R. KRISHNA IYER] Constitution of India-Seventh Schedule, List I Item 54, List Tl Item 23. Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1951---!Section 15- ~ihar Land Refonns Act 1950 [Section 10(2)]-Bihar Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1964 [Rule 20(2)). Interpretation of Statutes-Validation Act-Retrospecti've effect-Delegated Legislation-Legislation by incorporation. This Court in the case .of Baij Nath Kedia declared the seoond proviso to secti.on 10(2) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950. unconstitutional on the ground that the Bihar Legislature had no jurisdiction to enact it and that Parliament alone was competent to legislate. Th~s Court a1'o held that rule 20(2) framed by the Bihar Government as delegate of the Parliament under section 15 of the Mines and Minerals (RegUlation and Development) Act Of 19 57 was unconstitutional since the rule making power 'Conferred by .section 15 of the Central Act did not contemplate nlteration of terms of leases already in existence before the Act was passed. Second proviso to section 10(2) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act reads as under : "Provided further that the tenns and conditions of the said lease in regard to minor minerals as defined in the Mines and Mi...,erals IRegnlation and Development) Act, 1957 (Act LXVII of 1957) shall, in &0 far as they are inconsistent with the rules of that Act, stand substituted by the corresponding terms and conditions by those rules and if further ascertainment and settlement of the terms will become necessary then necessary proceedings for that purpose shall be undertaken by the Collector." Rule 20(2) authorises the alteration of the terms of leases which were in exiStence before the Central Act was passed. After the judgment in Baij Nath Kedia's case was delivered, the Parliament passed a Validation Act of 1969. Section 2 ( 1) and (2) of the Validation Act reads as under : lSl 11. c D 11 "21(1). The laws specified in the Schedule shall be and shall be G deemed always to have been, as valid as if the provisions contained therein had been enacted by Parliament. 2(2). Notwithstan~ing any judgment, decree or order of any court, all actions taken, things done, rules made, notifications issued or purported to have been taken, done, made or issued and rents or royalties realised under any such laws shall be deemed to have been yalidl_Y take!1, done, made, . issued or realised, as the case may be, as H if tbIS section had been 1n force at all material times when such notifications, were issued, or rents or royalties were realised, and no suit or other prceedings shall be maintained or continued in any court for the refund of rents or royalties realised under any such laws." \ (q the Schedule to the said Validation Act, section 10 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 and sub-rule (2) of Rule 20 of the Bihar Minor Mineral f~oneellsion Rules, 1%4, inter alia, have been set out. IO SC/75-ll SUPREME COURT IUlPOR.TS 0975] SUPP. S.C.lt. In the present petition under Article 32, validity of the Validation has been challenged by the petitioner on the grounds Act ."If. a law is void as being pa&Sed by an incompetent Legislature) validation by a subsequent Act passed by a competent J..egislature can only be effected by the subsequent Jaw enacting the provisions of the old Act expressly or by incorporation. It cannot be done by a competent Legislature, laying down in the subsequent Act that the former B Act passed by the incompetent Legislature is deemed to be valid. D ·E F G H No liability to levy rent or royalty can be created retroactively without ~wo. ~lear stages or ste~: firstly, a law must be enacted creating the habihty; next, such provISion should be made retrospective. This two-stage procedure is absent in the statute under attack and therefore the purpose, whatever it be, has misfired." The respondent contended that the Parliament adopted the form of incorporation referencially to a State Act and subordinate legislation given in the sche~ule to the Validation Act. The Validation Act was a product of the Parliament. It was not a case of Parliament simply validating an invalid law passed by the Bi bar Legislation. The Parliament re-enacted the Validation Act with retrOipective effect in its own right adding one Central Act to the Statute Book. Dismissing the appeal, . HEID : (i) Incorporation of Acts is permissible in the absence of other disabling factors. The Bihar Act qua the Bihar Legislature could not be resuscited by Parliament conferring such power through a law, as far as provisions of second proviso to section 10(2) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act is concerned. As far as rule 20(2) is concerned, the position is different since that is a rule framed by Parliament through its delegate the · State Government although rule was ultra vires being in excess of the Pomtr conferred by section 15 of the Central ACt. The Parliament had, therefore, passed a Validation Act to validate the void provisions of Bihar Land Reforms Act and the ultra vires sub-rule 2 of rule 20 as well as action taken and things done in connectiqn therewith. The power of a Legislature to pass a law obviously includes the power to pass it retrospectively. Earlier, the Bihar Act or Rules framed by the State Government under the Central Acts do not have to bo valid. for sustaining the Validation Act made by the Parliament. [162E-F, !63B] (ii) What is the intention of Parliament is mainly to be gathered from the language used, tested by approved cannons of construction. Unhappy wording, infelicitious expression of imperfect or inartistic drafting may not necessarily defeat for that reason alone the obvious object of the validating law and its retrospective content. The real question is whether the Court -can speculate on presumed intent of the Parliament and rewrite that object with implicit sense. We listen largely to th~ language of t.he Statut~ but whe~. as here clearing up of marginal obscunty may make interpretation surer if light fr0m dependable sources were to. beam in, the Cou~ may see.k such aid. In the instant case, we are satisfied that the Parhament desired to validl!te retrospectively what the Biha! legislatioi:t had. ineffectually attempted. It has used words plain enough to 1mplement its obJect and, therefore, the va1idating Act as well as the consequential levy are -?Ood. ~ule 20(2) of the Mineral Concession Rules stands on an assured footing. This sub-ri:te has been made by the Bihar Government purely as a delegate of Parhament. Therefore, Parliament could validate it and has done so. [166AB, 1561-I] (iii) Under our scheme of distribution .of. the legislative P?Wers, parti~ cularly when subjects of national and prov1nc1al .concern a~e 1nvolve.d, an and the States a lesser role, the present case of mines and minerals being an .instance in point. [155CD] (iv) The impugned legislation, levy and other actions are good. [168B] • KRISHNA cliANDRA v. UNION (Kl'ishna Iyer, !.) 133 i ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petitions· Nos. 357 to 359 of A 1970. Petitions under Art. 3.2 of the Constitution of India, A. K. Sen, P. K. Chatterjee and G. S. Chatterjee for the petitioners. · L. N. Sinha/ Solicitor General of India, S; N. Prasad, R. N. SachB lhey, and M. N. Shroff, for respondent no. 1. S. K. Sinha and K. K. Sinha, for respondent Nos. 2-5 (In W.P. No. 359/70). L. N. Sinha, Solicitor General of India and U. P. Singh, for re'- pondent no. 2. (in W.P. No. 357 /70 . .I L. N. Sinha, Solicitor General of India and D. Goburdhan, for respondent Nos. 2-4. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KRISHNA IYER, J.-The central issue in these petitions deals with the question whether a statute and a rule earlier declared by the Cc>urt unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, can be retroactive through fresh validating legislation enacted by the competent Legislature. More pointedly, the constitutionality of r. 20(2) framed by the Bihar Government under s. 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (Act LXVII of 1957) (for short, the Central Act) and the second proviso to s. 10(2) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 (for brevity, the Bihar Act) has been challenged on various grounds in the petitions, a validating statute by Parliament transforming them into Central legislation, as will be presently explained. The subject of the litigation is minor mineral~ and the right of the petitioners adversely affected by the impugned legislation, is to quarry stones etc., on the sirength of leases granted to them by erstwhile proprietors whose ownership vested in the State by virtue of the Bihar Act. By the combined operation of the second proviso to s. 10(2) of the Bihar Act and r. 20(2) (framed by the State Government) of the Bihar Miner Mineral Concession Rules, 1964 (hereinafter called the Rules) the petitioners were called upon to pay certain rents and royalties in respect of mining operations, but the power of the State, clothed by these provisions, was put in issue in the first round of litigation by lessees of quarries, which culminated disastrously against the State in Baij Nath Kedia v. State of Bihar( 1 ). This Court, in that case, held that the Bihar Legislature had no jurisdiction to enact the second proviso to s. 10(2) of the Bihar Act, because it went further to hold that s. I 5 of the Central Act, read with s. 2 thereof, had appropriated the whole field relating to minor minerals for Parliamentary legislation. This Court proceeded to lay down that the second sub-rule, added by the Notification dated December 10, 1964 to r. 20 of the rules did not affect leases in existence prior to the enactment of the rules. The upshot of the decision was that the (') [19 70] 2 SCR 100. D E F G H 154 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1975) SUPP. S.C.I.. A action taken by the Biha.r Government in modifying the terms and conditions of the leases which were in existence anterior to the rules and the levy sought to be made on the strength of the amended Bihar Act and rule were unsustainable. Thereupon the State persnaded Parliament to enact the validation Act of 1969 with a view to remove the road-blocks which resulted in the decision in Kedia's Case('). B The preamble and the short Act (11ow impugned) provide thus "An Act to validate certain provisions contained in the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, and the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1964, and action taken and things done in connection therewith... " C Section 1 gives the title of the Act. Section 2 of the Act runs thus • - F D E "2. Validation of certain Bihar State laws and action taken and things done connected therewith. ( 1) The laws specified in t11c Schedule shall be and shall be deemecl always to have been, as valid as if the provisions contained therein had been enacted by Parliament. (2) Notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any court, all actions taken, things done, rules made, notificatious issued or purported to have been taken, done, made or issued and rents or royalties realised under any such laws shall be deemed to have been validly taken, done, made, issued or realised, as the case may be, a~.if this section had been in force at all material times when such action was taken, things were done, rules wen; made, notifications were issued, or rents or royalties were realised, and no suit or other proceedings shall be maintained or continued in any court for the refund of rents or royalties realised under any such laws, (3) For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that nothing in sub-section (2) shall be construed as preventing any person from clainling refund of any rents or royalties paid by him in excess of the amount due from him under any such laws." G In the Schedule, section 10 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 (Bihar Act XXX of 1950), as amended by the Bihar Land Reforms • (Amendment) Act, 1964 (Bihar Act IV of 1965) and by the Bihar Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1965 (Bihar Act VI of 1965), and two other sections, namely, sections 10-A and 31, of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, as amended by the various amending Acts, a.re mentioned. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 20 of the Bihar Minor Mineral H Concession Rules, 1964, as inserted by the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession (First Amendment) Rnles, 1964, published under the Bihar Government Notification No. A/MM-109964 (pt.) 7700/M, dated the 19th December, 1964, in the Gazette of Bihar (Pt. JI), dated the 30th December, 1964 is also mentioned therein. (') [1970] 2 S.C.R. 100. - j > KRISHNA CHANDRA v. UNION (Krishna Iyer, J.) 155 The legal question canvassed before us is as to whethe~ the AmendA ing Act in question has been an ex~ri:ise in fullli~y because of an uncoIIStitutional essay and foggy drafting or has achie~ed ~he P':'rpose stt by Parliament which is transparent from the legislative h1st?ry. Shri A. K. Sen, counsel for the petitioner, has turned the focus . mllinly Or\ one or two deficiencies in the en.actment. of the Act. by. Parliament. Shri Sen's submission is that notwithstanding the validating measure B the ri$ht claimed by the Stat~ to alter. the terms of the lease or to impose al new levy has not validly acquued. Case History c Mines and minerals, as topics of legislation, fall under the Union and the State Lists. Under our scheme of distribution of legislative powers, particularly when subjects oJ' national and provincial concern are involved, an inter-locking arrangement is provid~d whereby the Union has a dqminant say and the States a lesser role, the present case of mines and minerals being an instance in point. The relevant entries .in the VII Schedule are item 54 of List I and item 23 of List II. The latter is expressly made subject to the provisions of List I with respect to regulation and development under the control of the Union and the Union's powers extend to regulation ancl development of mines ana minerals 'to the extent to which such regulation and development under the control of the Union is declared by Parliament by law to be expedient in the public interest'. In the exercise of the above power, the Union Parliament passed the Central Act which covered not merely the field of major minerals but also occupied the area of minor minerals, as is evident from ss. 15 and 16 of th-o Act. (The necessary declaration visualised in Entry 54 of List 1 is made by sec. 2 of the Central Act). Although the. legis1ation was made by Parliam.ent, s. 15 conferred power on the State Government as its delegate to make. rules in respect of minor minerals. D The Bihar State which had on its statute book a land reforms law, sought to acquire control over mines and minerals and in that behalf added a second proviso to s. 10(2) which reads thus (Bihar Act 4/65) : F "Provided further that the terms and conditions of the G said lease in regard to minor minerals as defined in the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (Act LXVII of 1957) shall, in so far as they are inconsistent with the rules of that Act, stand snbstituted by the corresponding terms and conditions by those rules and if further ascertainment and settlement of the terms will become necessary then necessary proceedin~ for that purpose shall be H llndertaken by t11e Collector." . The apparent legal result was that the Staie · Government could 'hape_ the terms an.d conditions of the leases granted by the quondam proprietors and this was done by framing rules unde.r s. 1 S of the Central Act as the delegate of Parliament. Faced with a demand for ' '156 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1975] SUPP. S.C.R. A higher levy put forward by the State, which had been .armed by the amendment of the Land Reform& Jaw. and the, rules under. s .. 15 of the Central Act, mineral pr!JSpeclo~ and quarriers moved. petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution. in the Patna High Court, . Althoiigb those petitions were dismissed, appeals \'/ere carried to this Co1Jft which, as earlier .stated, endedi in success. It is important to note the B re&sons which weighed with this Court in striking down the two pieces of legislation, one amending the B.ihar Act and the other, adding. a sub-rule under the Central Act, so that an insight into the infirmities of the said legislations may be gained and the need and object of the validation appreciated. Hidayatnllah, C. J. in Baij Nath Kedia( 1 ), speaking for the Court, C pointed out that the declaration contemplated by Entry 54 of List I was contained in s. 2 of Act 67 /57 and thus the Central Government assumed control over regulation of mines and mineral development to the extent provided in the Central Act. Since s. 15 of the Central Act went on to state that the State Government may IDJlke rules for regulating the grant of prospecting licences and mining leases in res- ' _.n pect of minor minerals' and for purposes connected therewith, the whole subject of legislation regarding minor mineral was also co"ered by the Central Act and, to that extent, the powers of the State Legislature stood excluded. No scope was therefore left for the enactment of the second proviso to s. 10(2) of the Bihar Act whiCh related to mining and minerals and was for that reason ultra vires. The fatei of . E sub-rule 20(2) was no better, according to the learned Chief Justice. Vested interests cannot oo taken away except by law made by a competent Legislature. Since the Bihar Legislature had lost power to legislate about minor minerals, Parliament was the sole source of power in this behalf. Rule 20(2) of the Bihar Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1964 was ineffective for modifying leases granted earJier. It could not derive snstenance on the second proviso to s., 10(2) '' F of the Bihar Act which had been held ultra vires not could legislative support be derived from s. 15 of the Central Act since the rnlemaking power conferred by that provision did not contemplate alteration of terms of leases already in existence before the· Act was passed. · L ./• The direct lessons from Kedia( 1) were drawn by Parliament and G suitable legislative action taken, according to the Solicitor General, resulting in the present validation Act.. So much so the ·purpose of the enactment was obvious, the law laid down by this, 'Court was obeyed and the resultant refereutia1 legislation must therefore be interpreted to further and fulfil-not to .frustrate or foil'"-the. intendment of retroactive validation of earlier inoperative legislative[ ·and executive H action taken by the Bihar State. Statutory conspectusand meanlniJ : Substantially this history of the impugned Act is not under serious 'challenge. The vital conflict is as to whether,• whateve~ may have heen iri the mirid of Parliament, the Court can speculate on presumed intent (i) [1970] 2 S.C.R.100 .' : . . ... • .. KRISHNA CHANDRA v. UNI(!N. (Krishna Iyer, /.) 151 .;·i~! and read that object with implicit sense. According to Sri Sen, what A has be.en legislated has to be judged on the language !Bed MUch, in his' view; was hardly adequate to create power to vary the 'Ieaie( or cast liability to pay larger rents ·and royalties retrospectively. · · · We listen largely to the language of the statute but where, as herel clearing. μp of marginal obscurity may make interpretation .surcc if · B light .from . dependable sources were to beam in, the Court may seek such aid. What has been described as the sound system of constroction, excluding all but the language of the text and the dictionary as the key, hardly holds the field especially if the enactment has a· fiscal or other mission, its surrounding circumstances speak and its history unfolds . the mischief to be remedied. The Court, in its comity with. the Legislature, strives reasonably to give meaningful life and avoid cadavcric consequence. We have set out the story of the rebirth, as it were, of the- law of minor mineral royalty levy to drive home the propriety of this method--of approach. No doubt, there is some remissness in the drawing up of what professes to be a valioating law and the neglected art of drafting bills is in part the reason for subtle length of submissions where ·better skill could have make the sense of the statute luscent and its validity above-board. Informed by· a realistic idea of shortfalls in legislative. drafting and of the social perspective of the statute but guided primarily by what the Act has \Said explicitly c or by necessary implication we will examine the meaning and its impact on coun.~el's contentions. The main lJTOpositions of law Keditis Case(') has held void both proviso 2 to s. 10 of the Bihar Act and Rule 20(2) made under the Central Act. Shri A. K. Sen did not dispute the legislative competence of Parliament, by specific enactment, to validate retroactively otherwise invalid legislation or ineorporate into a Central Act a void State legislation since mines and m1nerals, minor and major, had been taken over by the Centre. tlis chief submission was that the well-known legislative mechanics to resurrect statutorily earlier Acts or rules declared dead by Court had !'ct been. ~dopted he~e, so muc? so the fi<:tion _introduced by the deemmg provIS10n has failed to achieve what 1s bemg claimed by the State as the legislative object. Mr. Sen's proposition, shortly stated, is : "If a law is void as being passed by an incompetent Legislature, validation by a subsequent Act passed by a <;ompetent Legislature can only be effected by the subsequent law enacting the provisions of the old Act expressly or by incorporation. It cannot be done by a competent Legislature laying down in the subsequent Act that the former Act passed by the incompetent Legislature is deemed to be valid.'' · What. is moot is not the proposition but its application to our legislative situation. · · ' · (') [1970] 2 S.C.R. 100. c· D i F G H r 158 SUPIU!lllB COURT RBPORTS [1975) SUPP. s.c.R. A Reliance for this proposition was placed, inter alia on Jaora Sugar Mills v. State(') ; Jawaharmal v. State of Rajasthan(2) ; Shama Rao v. Pondicherry(3 ) and Gwalior Rayon Mills v. Asstt. Commissioner, · S.T. ( 1). To take the last case first, we may state that the problem tackled there related to excessive delegation and abdication of legislative power and did not bear upon the issue of legislation by reference B · or incorporation. Of course, there is consideration of S hama Rao ( ') in the judgment of Mathew J., but it is difficult to make out how the observations to which our attention was invited bear upon tlie issue beiore us. The learned Judge's containment of the principle in Shama Rao(") C with which we respectfully concur, may be set out here (p. 1679) : D E "We think that the principle of the ruling in [1967] 2 SCR 650 (viz., Sha ma Rao) must be confined to the facts of the case, It is doubtful whether there is any general principle which precludes either. Parliament or a State legislature from adopting a law and the future amendments to the law passed respectively by a State legislature or Parliament and incorporating them in its legislation. At any rate, there can be no such prohibition when the adoption is nqt of the entire corpus of law on a subject but only of a provision and its future amendments and that for a special reason or purpose." The kernel of Gwalior Rayon (4) is the ambit of delegation by Legislatures, and the reference to legislation by adoption or incorporation supports the competence and does not contradict the vires of such a process-not an unusual phenomenon in legislative systems nor counter F to the plentitude of powers constitutional law has in many jt1risdictions conceded to such instrumentalities clothed with plenary authority. The Indian legislatures and courts have never accepted any inhibition against or limitation upon enactment by incorporation, as such. The dispute is not whether Parliament can legislate into validity a State Act which is outside the State List If s. 2 of the impugned G Act merely validates invalid State law by Parliament's action, it is doomed to fail. It is for the Constitution, not Parliament, to confor competence on State Legislatures. The observations in Jaora Sugar Mills(') on which Shri A K. Sen laid great stress, silence the question : H " .... If it is shown that the impugned Act purports to do nothing more than validate the invalid State statutes, then of course, such a validating Act would be outside the legis- (') [19661 1 S.C.R. 513, 531. (')[ 1966]1 S.C.R. 890, 901. 9-04. (') [19671 2 S.C.R. 650, 662. (4) A.lR 1974 S.C. 1660, 1681. ' -. • .) '· KRISHNA CHANDRA v. UNION (Krishna Iyer, J.) 159 lative competence of Parliament itself. Where a topic is not A included within the relevant List dealing with the legislative competence of the State Legislatures, Parliament, by making a law, cannot attempt to confer such legislative competence on the State Legislatures." It is a far constitutional cry from this position to the other proposition that where Parliament bas power to enact on a topic actually legislates within its competence but, as an abbreviation of drafting, borrows into the statute by reference the words of a State Act not qua State Act but as a convenient shorthane, as against a longhand writing or all the sections into the Central Act, such legislation stands or falls on Parliament's legislative power, vis-a-vis the subject viz., min~s and minerals. The distinction between the two legal lines may sometimes be fine but always is real. Jaora Sugar Mills (supra) illumined this basic difference with reference to s .. 3 of the Act challenged there, by observing : " ...... What Parliament has done by enacting the said section is not to validate the invalid State statutes, but to make a law concerning the cess coveree by the said Statutes and to provide that the said law shall come into operation retrospectively. There is a radical difference between the two positions. Where the Legislature wants to validate an earlier Act which has been declared to be invalid for one reason or another, it proceeds to remove the infirmity from the said Act and valiCates its provisions which are ·free from any infirmity. That is not what Parliament has done in enacting the present Act. Parliament knew that the relevant Statutes were invalid, because the State Legislatures did not possess legislative competence to enact them. Parliament also knew that it was fully competent to make an Act in respect of the subject-matter covered by the said invalid State Statlltes. Parliament, howew.r, decided that rather than make elaborate anc long provisions in respect of the recovery cf the cess, it would be more convenient to make a compendious provision such as is contained in s. 3. The pla)n meaning of Section 3 is that the material and relevant provisions of notifications, orders and rules issued or made thereunder are included in Section 3 and shall be evcmed to have been included at all material times in it. In othel words, what section 3 provides is that by its order and force, the respective cesses will be deemed to have been recovered because the provisions in relation to the recovery of the said cesses have been incorporated in the Act itself. The command under which the cesses would be eeemed to have b~en recovered would, therefore, be the .command of Parliament, because all the relevant sections, notifications, orders and mies have been. adopted by the Parliamentary statute itself." Nb Parliamentary olllllipotence to re-draw Le~islative Lists in the VII Schedule can be arrogated to confer on the State compeB c D E F G H 160 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1975] SUPP. s.c.R. A tence to enact on a topic where it is outside its Lists. But if Parliament has ~e power to legislate on the topic, it can make· an Act ~n the topic by any dlafting means, including by referential legislation. B The learned Solicitor General, in the course of his submissions mac!e it clear that he did not want to vindicate the levy by any validation of the invalidated portion of s. 10 of the Bihar Act. He based his case on the success with which Parliament had lcgislate • KRISHNA CHANDRA v. UNION (:Krishna Iyer, !.) 161 assent of the President to such declaration also does not ;Jr.. $erve the purpose which subsequent assent by the President can serve unc!er Article 255 .. ," x x x x · ". .we have tried s.4 as favourably as we can while appreciating the argument of the learned AdvocateGeneral; but the words used in all the three parts of Section 4 are clear and unambiguous; they indicate that the Legislature thought that it was competent to it to cure, by its owu legislative process, the infirmity resulting from the non-compliance with Article 255 when it passed the earlier Finance Acts in question, and it was probably advised that such a legislative c!eclaration would be valid and effective provided it received the assent of the President. In our opiniou, the approach aeopted by the Legislature iu this case is entirely misconceived. The Legislature, no doubt, can validate an earlier Act which is invalid by rea- · son of uon-compliance with Article 255 and such an Act may receive the assent of the President. which will make the Act effective. The Legislature cannot, however, itself declare by a statutory provision that the failure to comply with Article 255' can be cured by its own enactment even if the said enactment received the assent of the Presi-· dent. ·In our opinion, even the assent of the President cannot alter the true constitutional position under Art. 255. The assent of the Presic!ent cannot, by any legislative process, be deemed to have been given to an earlier Act at a time when in fact it was not so given. In this context there is no scope for a retrospective deeming 'in regard to the assent of the President. It is somewhat unfortunate that the casual drafting of Section 2 leaves the period covered by Act 11 of 1962 and the notification issued thereunder as ·unenforceable as before, and the. omnibus ane general provisions of Section 4 are of no help in regard to the said period." ,E In dismissing· a similar contention based on Jawaharmal (supra), to challenge the identical statute with which we are here concerned, the Patna High Court observed, in Dlralbhum T & I Ltd. v. Union of : l] l11dia(1)'; · · · . · "In that case, the validating law merely c!eclared that the original invalid legislation was valid in spite of the contravention of Article 255 of the Constitution. In the instant case, Parliament has not sought to declare that the failure to comply with the requirements of Article 255 of the Constitution is of no ·consequence." The crncial demarcation between Jaora Sugar Mills (supra). and Jawahμrmal .(supra) is importa,nt and cannot be overlooked. The latter (') AIR 1972 Pat. 364, 373. H l62 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1975) SUPP, i.C.1'.. A case dealt with a State Legislature ineffectually overcoming invalidity caused by absence of Presidential assent. Validation by a legislature must necessarily be of what it could validly have done and not of what someone else had to do. The assent of the President could not be made up for by the validating process adopted by the legislature. So it was that Jawaharmal (supra) suffered from legislative incompetence a second time . .B It is important to notice, however, that the alleged vice of the legislation in the present case relates to a radically different area. What is within the competence of Parlia,ment it seeks to do-validation by incorporation of a legislation on a topic within its purview. The device adopted of re-enacting by valic!ation is familiar to the Indian C draftsman as to his Anglo-American counterpart. We have no doubt that incorporation of Acts is permissible in the absence of other disabling factors. It is one thing to say that retroactive validatk1n by a competent legislature is impermissible; it is another to contend that there has not been a valid execution of this process or rather Parliament has not, in the present case, done what the draftsman ~;· ought to have done to effectuate the ostensible purpose of creating D a new power to levy" royalty anc! to alter the terms of the mining leases and then to give such newly created liability anterior effect. E The controversy now shifts to the effectiveness or otherwise of the legislative device in achieving retroactive validation. We have already noticed that the second proviso to s.10(2) of the Bihar Act and sub-r.(2) of r.20 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1964 were void, as held by this Court. We have therefore to treat them as non est. We have already held that the Bihar Act qua Bihar Legislation coulc! not be resuscitated by Parliament conferring such power through a law. The position may be different so far as rule 20(2} is concerned since that is a rule ·framed by Parliament through its F delegate, the State Government, although the rule itself being in excess of the power conferred by s.15 of the Central Act was ultra vires. In this invalidatory situation, Parliament passed an Act to validate the void provision of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 and the ultra vires sub-rule of r.20 of the Mineral Concession Rules as well as the action taken and things c!one in connection therewith. The Act is itself short and consists of two sections, of which the G ·H latter is the only important one. It validates the laws specified in the schedule by a deeming device. Secondly, it brings into force, back-dating it, all action taken, rents and royalties realised and rules mac!e 'notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any Court'. The problem before us is whether the Act has achieved its purpose of creating retrospective liability for rents, royalties etc: .• and validating retrospectively the impugned provisions of the Bihar Act and the Mineral Concession Rules. Shri A K. Sen's criticism has to be noticed in this background; for he urges that in the light of the rulings of this Court no liability to levy rent or royalty can be created retroactively without two clear stages or steps : firstly, a law must be enacted creatin~ the liability; next, such provision should be made retrospective. This twe>-stage procedure is absent in the statute unc!er attack and therefore the pur- ' ' - ·+ ; '"'"' '*~ KRISHNA CHANDRA v. UNTO'<· (Krishna Iyer, J.) 16l pose, whatever it be, has misfired, argues Mr .. Sen. In _plain terms A the present case raises the question of enactment by reference and incorporation. It is correct to contend that curative statutes and validating exercises, unless the process is explicit enough and permissible otherwise, cannot be given ex post facto effect by courts. What is the intention of Parliament is mainly to be gathered from the Janguage used, tested by approved canons of construction. ·B The profusion of precedents touched upon at the Bar leaves us with a few which were stressed as having direct pertinence to the points in debate. The power of a legislature to pass a law obviously ,. includes the power to pass it retrospectively. Minor minerals, as explained already, being a topic withdrawn and confided to Parlia- ·C ... ment for legislation, the validating Act cannot fail for incompetenc~ . But before a levy expost facto is mac!e, the legislation must first create J the fiscal 'liability and then project it retrospectively. This is the broad trend of Sri A. K. Se'n's submission. He relies heavily on Kamrup( 1) to urge that a legislation ca)lnot by a simple 'deeming' device render valid what is unconstitutional. The following observations were emphasized by counsel (p. 580 D of the report) : "It is to be seen that the core of Assam Act' 21 of 1960 is the deeming provision of s.2 under which certain lands are deemec! to be acquired under the earlier Act. As this deeming provision is invalid, all the other ancillary provisions fall to the grounc! along with it. The later Act is entirely dependent upon the continuing existence and validity of the earlier Act. As the earlier Act jg, unconstitutional and has no legal existence, the provisions of Act No. 21 of > 1960 are incapable of enforcement and are invalid." The ratio is apt to be misunderstood for, in its essence, the judg- :r - men! merely holds that where the later Act is entirely depenc!ent Cl upon the valid continuance of the earlier Act, which has been held unconstitutional, the deeming provision cannot produce the desired effect. The learned Solicitor General, however, argues that the situation in the present case is altogether different. The earlier Bihar Act or the rules framed by the State Government under the Act c!o G not .have to be valid ~or. sust.aining the amending Act made . by Parliament. The c~nstitul!onahty of the earlier law has not to be ' p~s1~ed for the survival of the Central amending Act. In this subm1Ss1on the learned Solicitor General is right and so the proposition in Ka,mrup( 1) is inapplicable here. In Hari Singh( 2 ), Kamrup(') was approved but there is no q~arre! over. the correctness of the proposition there, its application H bemg mept m the context of t~e present case. However, Ray J. (as he then was), made certam observations which were pressed before us by Mr.