Summary
Landowners challenged Tamil Nadu's 2019 legislation reviving three land-acquisition enactments previously held repugnant to the central 2013 Act. The Supreme Court upheld the revival and validation law: the State had legislative competence, enacted substantive changes, obtained fresh Presidential assent and validly operated retrospectively from 26 September 2013. This removed the basis of the earlier judgment rather than legislatively overruling it. The Court confined its decision to that validating exercise and left other constitutional challenges to the underlying acquisition laws open.
Issues
- Whether the 2019 revival and validation law impermissibly overruled the High Court judgment.
- Whether fresh Presidential assent and referential re-enactment satisfied Article 254(2).
- Whether retrospective commencement before the central law's assent recreated repugnancy.
Provisions considered
- Article 254, Constitution of IndiaA competent State legislature could revive repugnant concurrent-field laws through fresh substantive legislation with Presidential assent; the date of making, rather than retrospective commencement, governed the repugnancy analysis. (¶¶ 25, 26, 29, 30, 33, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 47, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56)
- Sections 1–13, Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Laws (Revival of Operation, Amendment and Validation) Act, 2019The integrated revival, incorporation of central compensation and rehabilitation benefits, amendments and validation constituted a permissible referential legislative exercise and cured the previously defective method of revival. (¶¶ 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 56)
Held
- A validating law must rest on legislative competence and remove the material basis of invalidity through substantive change; a bare declaration overriding a judgment is impermissible. Retrospective validation is permissible within constitutional limits. (¶¶ 27, 28, 29, 30)
- The earlier judgment rejected revival through section 105-A but did not prohibit all revival. The 2019 Act changed the statutory position and complied with Article 254(2), rather than reproducing the failed mechanism or directly nullifying the judgment. (¶¶ 32, 33, 36, 37, 46, 47, 48, 49)
- Re-enactment could proceed by incorporation and reference in a composite law; reproducing each prior enactment in a separate fresh bill was unnecessary. The Court assessed legislative substance rather than cosmetic form. (¶¶ 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45)
- The assent request identified the three State enactments and the particular central 2013 law, described the failed revival and sought precedence despite repugnancy. It satisfied the applicable constitutional requirement; this was not a general assent against unspecified parliamentary laws. (¶¶ 50, 51, 52)
- The 2019 law was made when Presidential assent was obtained, notwithstanding its retrospective commencement on 26 September 2013. Treating commencement as the date of making would defeat the recognised validating power. (¶¶ 53, 54)
- Other constitutional objections to the underlying acquisition enactments, including equality-based comparisons with the central law, were expressly left for the separate pending proceedings. Upholding this validating exercise did not decide those issues. (¶¶ 22, 23, 46, 55)
Result
Writ petitions dismissed without costs; the 2019 revival and validation Act upheld within the limited enquiry, with other constitutional challenges to the underlying State enactments left open.