SC Decisions Upholding Constitutional Validity Of A Law Do Not Bind Legislature From Repealing Or Modifying It: Supreme Court
The Apex Court observed that a repeal statute does not recreate the legal framework anew but rather extinguishes the earlier Act’s operative provisions.
Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Prasanna B. Varale, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court in a recent Judgment held that the decisions of the Apex Court upholding constitutional validity of a Statute do not bind the Legislature from modifying or repealing that Statute when subsequent developments warrant a change in policy.
The Court held thus in a batch of Criminal Appeals preferred by the Private Bus Operators and Karnataka State Road Transport Authority against the Judgment of the Karnataka High Court.
The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale observed, “The contention advanced by the Respondent Corporation (KSRTC) that repealing the KCCA Act is unconstitutional because it effectively overrules the decisions of the Supreme Court in Ranganatha Reddy (Supra) and Vijayakumar Sharma (Supra) fails to recognize the dynamic nature of legislative policy. Those Supreme Court decisions merely affirmed the constitutional validity of the KCCA Act at the time of its enactment; they do not bind the Legislature from modifying or repealing a statute when subsequent developments warrant a change in policy.”
The Bench further observed that a repeal statute does not recreate the legal framework anew but rather extinguishes the earlier Act’s operative provisions and is not subject to the same procedural requirements as an original enactment when it comes to the need for fresh assent, provided that the repeal falls within the legislative competence of the State.
Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamat appeared on behalf of the Appellants while Senior Advocate Kiran Suri appeared on behalf of the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The Karnataka Contract Carriages (Acquisition) Act, 1976 (KCCA Act) was enacted with the objective of acquiring privately operated contract carriages to curb their alleged detrimental operation in the State and to bring them under public control. This Act was challenged but upheld by the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. Ranganatha Reddy (1978) and later reaffirmed in Vijayakumar Sharma v. State of Karnataka (1990). In 1988, the Motor Vehicles Act (MV Act) was enacted and in 1989, the Karnataka Motor Vehicle Rules (KMV Rules) were enacted. In the subsequent decades, transport policy in Karnataka underwent shifts due to rising demand for public transport services, rapid urbanization, and the perceived inability of government-run corporations alone to meet commuter needs. Thereafter, in 2003, the Amendment Act was enacted. Before the Karnataka High Court, the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) and its employees’ federation filed various Writ Petitions challenging the validity of the 2003 Repeal Act and the power of the Secretaries to grant permits.
The Single Judge held that Rules 55 and 56 of the KMV Rules are null and void as ultra vires the MV Act and that the delegation of power to issue contract carriage and stage carriage permits as well as to perform the functions of STA/RTA to the Secretary is not permissible. Thereafter, the Single Judge ruled that the repeal of the KCCA Act is unconstitutional. Subsequently, the Division Bench consolidated multiple challenges to the 2003 Repeal Act, as well as the dispute about whether the Secretary, STA could lawfully grant permits. The Division Bench upheld the constitutional validity of repealing the 1976 Act but rejected the argument that the STA/RTA could delegate contract carriage permit issuance to the Secretary. Being aggrieved, the Appellants approached the Apex Court.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court in the above regard, noted, “… the rationale underlying the 2003 Repeal Act is sound and consistent with the principles of legislative power. The arguments advanced by the Respondent Corporation, that the repeal would amount to an impermissible overruling of prior Supreme Court decisions, that it violates the requirement of presidential assent, or that it is otherwise beyond the legislative competence of the State, are untenable.”
The Court reiterated that the power to repeal a law is coextensive with the power to enact it. It further referred to the Judgment in the case of Ramakrishna v. Janpad Sabha (1962) in which it was held that if the Legislature has the power to enact a law on a particular subject, it equally possesses the power to repeal that law.
“… even if one accepts that the grant of permits has a quasi-judicial element, it is an established principle of administrative law that quasi-judicial functions may be delegated if the enabling statute expressly provides for such delegation”, it said.
The Court, therefore, concluded the following findings –
(a) Section 3 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Act, 2003, which repeals the Karnataka Contract Carriages (Acquisition) Act, 1976 is constitutional.
(b) The State Transport Authority (STA) possesses the power to delegate its functions under Section 68(5) of the MV Act, as expressly provided by the statute and further clarified by Rule 56(1)(d) of the KMV Rules.
The Court also directed the appropriate authorities to take all necessary measures to implement its findings and ensure that the delegation of permit granting power is exercised in a manner consistent with the statutory provisions and the objectives of efficient public transport administration.
Accordingly, the Apex Court dismissed the Appeals of KSRTC and allowed that of the private bus operators and Karnataka State Road Transport Authority.
Cause Title- M/s. S.R.S. Travels v. The Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Workers & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 152)
