'Freedom does not mean freedom from laws'

By Our Staff Correspondent

JAIPUR, AUG. 11. In a significant judgment, the Rajasthan High Court has upheld the validity of three amendments made to the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950, by which the power to release vehicles impounded in connection with offences under the excise law was taken away from all courts and tribunals and given to the State Excise Commissioner.

A Division Bench of the High Court, dismissing a bunch of 75 writ petitions challenging the amendments, held that the amended provisions had only created an alternative forum under the Act and had in no way curtailed the rights of citizens. The Court said the petitioners' claim that the amended provisions were violative of the Constitution had ``no weight or merit of acceptance''.

The Bench - comprising the Chief Justice, Dr. Justice Arunachalam Chettiar Lakshmanan, and Mr. Justice Ashok Parihar - in its 53- page verdict applied the ``pith and substance'' theory to interpret the legislative powers of the State Legislature and ruled that the provisions inserted into the State Excise Act by way of the impugned amendments were precisely within the integral scheme of the Act.

The Rajasthan Excise Amendment Act, 2000 - which had amended Section 69 of the Excise Act and inserted a new Section 54-A - was passed by the State Assembly to check the menace of unauthorised transportation of excisable articles, with the vehicles indulging in the practice even after seizure for the offence, as they got released from courts.

Since the owners of such vehicles were indulging in these activities with impunity, the amended provisions laid down that if any means of conveyance was used in the commission of an offence under the Excise Act, it would be liable to be confiscated by order of the Excise Commissioner. The new Section 69(6) of the Act provides that no court or tribunal will have jurisdiction to make an order with regard to possession, delivery, disposal or release of such vehicles. The power will lie with the State Excise Commissioner. Similarly, Section 9-B of the Act, which was introduced in the Gazette Notification on July 31, 1998, had also barred the jurisdiction of civil courts in respect of proceedings to set aside or modify any original order passed by any competent officer under the Act.

The petitioners, who were mostly owners of vehicles confiscated by the excise authorities, had contended that the amended provision were repugnant to the Criminal and Civil Procedure Codes, contrary to Article 254 of the Constitution, and without the assent of the President and had conferred unbridled powers on the excise authorities.

By Section 9-B, the relief of judicial review had been taken away and the petitioners had been rendered remedyless, according to them. Article 254 of the Constitution provides that if any provision of a law made by a State legislature is repugnant to any law made by Parliament or to an existing law with respect to a matter enumerated in the Concurrent List, the latter will prevail and the State law will be void to the extent of the repugnancy.

The High Court rejected all the contentions and ruled that the amended provisions of the Excise Act were perfectly valid and within the competence of the State legislature. The Court observed that though the amendments had ``trenched'' upon some of the provisions of other laws, they were in pith and substance within the integral scheme of the Act and fell within the State List of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution.

``Since the Legislature was competent under Article 246(3) of the Constitution to enact the Amendment Act, the assent of the President was not necessary,'' the Judges observed. If the statute relates in pith and substance to a topic assigned to a particular legislation, the provision will not be invalidated even if it incidentally trenches on topics coming within another legislative list, the Court held.

It also pointed out that the amendments had been made with the simple intention to check liquor smuggling and to give more teeth to the existing law. ``These provisions were intended to achieve the objects for which the Excise Act was enacted,'' said the Court, adding that the confiscation power conferred on the Excise Commissioner was in no way in violation of the Constitution.

The Court's attention was drawn by the Advocate-General, Mr. S. M. Mehta - representing the State of Rajasthan - to similar provisions incorporated into the excise laws of Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh. The validity of these provisions has already been upheld by the High Courts as well as by the Supreme Court.

``In our view, freedom does not mean freedom from laws or regulations,'' the Bench tersely observed.

The Court also quoted a judgment of the Madras High Court - delivered in 1994 by a Division Bench comprising Dr. Justice Lakshmanan himself and another Judge - in an identical manner upholding the validity of a similar provision of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition (Second Amendment) Ordinance, 1982.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Other States
Previous : Chandigarh handed over to Punjab secretly: Brar