Summary
The Court upheld Manipur’s competence to repeal its Parliamentary Secretaries Act, which had not itself been judicially invalidated before repeal. It nevertheless struck down the saving clause in the exceptional circumstances of a repeal expressly acknowledging the materially identical Assam law’s constitutional defect. To prevent public confusion and harm to third parties, the Court separately used Article 142 to preserve only acts, deeds and decisions duly undertaken by the Parliamentary Secretaries during their tenure.
Issues
- Whether the earlier Assam decision required reconsideration or automatically invalidated Manipur’s corresponding statute.
- Whether Manipur could enact the repeal and its saving clause.
- Whether past official actions should nevertheless be protected.
Provisions considered
- Seventh Schedule, List II, Entries 39 and 40, Constitution of IndiaThe salaries-and-allowances entry did not justify creating Parliamentary Secretary offices; the Court declined to reconsider Bimolangshu Roy. (¶¶ 8, 10-14)
- Section 2(2), Manipur Parliamentary Secretary (Appointment, Salary and Allowances and Miscellaneous Provisions) Repealing Act, 2018The saving clause was invalid in the exceptional circumstances of repeal acknowledging the underlying constitutional defect, though the legislature could enact the repeal itself. (¶¶ 2, 24, 26)
- Article 142, Constitution of IndiaOnly acts, deeds and decisions duly undertaken during the Parliamentary Secretaries’ tenure were saved to avoid harm to third parties and disruption of public business. (¶ 25-26)
Held
- The attempt to support creation of Parliamentary Secretary offices through Entry 40 failed. That entry concerned State Ministers’ salaries and allowances and did not warrant reconsidering Bimolangshu Roy’s treatment of legislative powers and privileges. (¶ 10-14)
- Bimolangshu Roy had addressed the Assam statute, not Manipur’s 2012 Act. The latter had not been declared unconstitutional before repeal. The High Court erred in invalidating the already repealed law and in concluding that the legislature consequently lacked power to repeal it. (¶¶ 15-16, 24, 26)
- Repeal with a legislative saving clause differs from judicial invalidation and judicial protection of past transactions. Although a legislature ordinarily may save matters on repeal, the exceptional facts here included its express acknowledgment of the corresponding constitutional defect and pending challenges. It could not use the saving clause to breathe life into the legislation it repealed on that basis. (¶ 18-24)
- Invalidating all official transactions could seriously damage third parties and disrupt public business. Article 142 was therefore used to save only acts, deeds and decisions duly undertaken during the appointees’ tenure, until their appointments were discontinued. It was unnecessary to decide the pleaded de facto doctrine. (¶ 25-26)
- The repeal was upheld, its saving clause struck down and the specified official actions independently preserved. The appeals were disposed of in those terms. (¶ 26-27)
Result
Appeals disposed of. Legislative competence to repeal upheld; statutory saving clause struck down. Acts, deeds and decisions duly undertaken during the Parliamentary Secretaries’ tenure independently saved under Article 142.