STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS
The Constitution (Thirty-ninth Amendment)
Bill, 1975 seeks to amend
articles 123, 213, 239B, 352, 356, 359 and 360 of the Constitution.
2. Article 123 empowers the President to
promulgate Ordinances when
both the Houses of Parliament are not in session if he is satisfied
that circumstance exist rendering it necessary to take
immediate
action. Corresponding powers have been conferred by the Constitution
on the Governor under article 213. Similar powers have been conferred
on the Administrator under article 239B when the Legislature of
a
Union territory is not in session. On the plain language of articles
123, 213 and 239B there is no doubt that the satisfaction mentioned in
those articles is subjective satisfaction and
that it is not
justiciable. There is no doubt that this was also the intention of
the makers of the Constitution. However, litigation
is pending
involving the justificability of this issue and contentions are being
raised that the issue is subject to judicial scrutiny. To place the
matter beyond doubt, it is proposed to provide in the Constitution
that the satisfaction of the President, Governor or
Administrator
shall be final and conclusive and shall not be questioned in any court
on any ground.
3. Article 352 empowers the President to
declare Emergency if he is
satisfied that the security of India or any part of it is threatened
by war, external aggression or internal disturbance. Article
356
empowers the President to assume to himself the functions of
the
Government of a State if the constitutional machinery in any State
fails and the Government in the State cannot be carried on. Likewise
article 360 empowers the President to declare Financial Emergency if
he is satisfied that the financial stability of India is threatened.
Here again, the issue regarding satisfaction is, on the face of the
articles clearly not justiciable. However, as the validity of the
Proclamation issued under article 352 has been challenged in several
proceedings and as litigation of this nature involves waste of public
time and money, it is proposed to amend these three articles so as to
make the satisfaction of the President final and conclusive and not
justiciable on any ground.
4. In addition to
article 352, contentions have been raised in
certain writ petitions that while the original
Proclamation of
Emergency is in operation no further Proclamation of Emergency could
be made thereunder. In order to place the matter beyond doubt it is
proposed to make it clear in article 352 that the President may issue
different Proclamations on different grounds whether or not there is a
Proclamation already in existence and in operation.
5. When a Proclamation of Emergency is in
operation, the President is
empowered under article 359 of the Constitution to make an
order
suspending the right to move any court for the enforcement of such of
the rights conferred by Part III as may be mentioned in that order.
It was intended that the powers conferred by this article should be
exercised during an emergency according to needs of the situation. On
the other hand, article 358 renders the provisions of
article 19
automatically inoperative while the Proclamation of Emergency is in
operation, and the power to make any law or to take any
executive
action is not restricted by the provisions of that article.
The
intention underlying article 359 appears to be that when an order is
made under clause (1) of that article in relation to any of the rights
conferred by Part III and mentioned in the order, the order so made
would have for all practical purposes the same effect in relation to
those rights as article 358 has in relation to article 19. It
is,
therefore, proposed not to have any differences in language between
article 358 and the language in respect of those rights only which may
be mentioned in the Presidential Order under clause (1) of article
359.
6. The Bill seeks to achieve the aforesaid objects.
NEW DELHI;
H. R. GOKHALE.
The 20th July, 1975.
THE CONSTITUTION (THIRTY-EIGHTH AMENDMENT) ACT, 1975
[1st August, 1975.]
An Act further to amend the Constitution of India.
BE it enacted by Parliament in the Twenty-sixth
Year of the Republic
of India as follows:-
1. Short title.-This
Act may be called the
Constitution
(Thirty-eighth Amendment) Act, 1975.
2. Amendment of article
123.-In article 123 of the Constitution,
after clause (3), the following clause shall be inserted, and shall be
deemed always to have been inserted, namely:-
"(4) Notwithstanding anything in this
Constitution, the satisfaction
of the President mentioned in clause (1) shall be final and conclusive
and shall not be questioned in any court on any ground.".
3. Amendment of article
213.-In article 213 of the Constitution,
after clause (3), the following clause shall be inserted, and shall be
deemed always to have been inserted, namely:-
"(4) Notwithstanding anything in this
Constitution, the satisfaction
of the Governor mentioned in clause (1) shall be final and conclusive
and shall not be questioned in any court on any ground.".
4. Amendment of article 239B.-In
article 239B of the Constitution,
after clause (3), the following clause shall be inserted, and shall be
deemed always to have been inserted, namely:-
"(4) Notwithstanding anything in this
Constitution, the satisfaction
of the administrator mentioned in clause (1) shall be
final and
conclusive and shall not be questioned in any court on any ground.".
5. Amendment of article
352.-In article 352 of the Constitution,
after clause (3), the following clauses shall be inserted, and shall
be deemed always to have been inserted, namely:-
"(4) The power conferred
on the President by this article shall
include the power to issue different Proclamations on
different
grounds, being war or external aggression or internal disturbance or
imminent danger of war or external aggression or internal disturbance,
whether or not there is a Proclamation already issued by the President
under clause (1) and such Proclamation is in operation.
(5) Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution,-
(a) the satisfaction of the
President mentioned in clause (1) and
clause (3) shall be final and conclusive and shall not be questioned
in any court on any ground;
(b) subject to the provisions of clause (2), neither
the Supreme Court
nor any other court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any question,
on any ground, regarding the validity of-
(i) a declaration made by Proclamation by the
President to the effect
stated in clause (1); or
(ii) the continued operation of such
Proclamation.".
6. Amendment of article
356.-In article 356 of the Constitution,
after clause (4), the following clause shall be inserted, and shall be
deemed always to have been inserted, namely:-
"(5) Notwithstanding anything in this
Constitution, the satisfaction
of the President mentioned in clause (1) shall be final and conclusive
and shall not be questioned in any court on any ground.".
7. Amendment of article
359.-In article 359 of the Constitution,
after clause (1), the following clause shall be inserted, and shall be
deemed always to have been inserted, namely:-
"(1A) While an order made under clause (1)
mentioning any of the right
conferred by Part III is in operation, nothing in that Part conferring
those rights shall restrict the power of the State as defined in the
said Part to make any law or to take any executive action which the
State would but for the provisions contained in that Part be competent
to make or to take, but any law so made shall, to the extent of the
incompetency, cease to have effect as soon as the order
aforesaid
ceases to operate, except as respects things done or omitted to be
done before the law so ceases to have effect.".
8. Amendment of article
360.-In article 360 of the Constitution,
after clause (4), the following clause shall be inserted, and shall be
deemed always to have been inserted, namely:-
"(5) Notwithstanding anything in this
Constitution,-
(a) the satisfaction of the President mentioned in
clause (1) shall be
final and conclusive and shall not be questioned in any court on any
ground;
(b) subject to the provisions of clause (2), neither
the Supreme Court
nor any other court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any question,
on any ground, regarding the validity of-
(i) a declaration made by Proclamation by the
President to the effect
stated in clause (1); or
(ii) the continued operation of such
Proclamation.".
BACK