Introduction

• This case essentially revolves around the pre-Constitutional laws that conflicted with the fundamental rights outlined in Part III of the Indian Constitution of 1950.
• It addresses the significant concern raised post the Constitution's enactment: whether all pre-Constitutional laws would become void once the Constitution of India, 1950 took effect.

Facts

• In September 1949, a pamphlet was published in Bombay by the Petitioner, the publishing house's secretary.
• The pamphlet violated Section 15(1) and was punishable under Section 18(1) of the Indian Press Emergency Powers Act, 1931.
• Prosecution was initiated against the Petitioner, and proceedings were pending when the Constitution of India came into force.
• Subsequently, the Petitioner filed a written statement contending that the definition of “news sheets” under the Indian Press Emergency Powers Act, 1931, violated fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(a) read with Article 13.
• Additionally, they stated that proceedings in the matter should be stayed until the High Court decided the question of law.
• However, the High Court dismissed the appeal, asserting that proceedings were not affected even if they were inconsistent with the fundamental rights under the Constitution of India, 1950.
• Following this decision, the Petitioner appealed before the Supreme Court.

Issues Involved

• Whether Section 15 and Section 18 of the Indian Press Emergency Powers Act, 1931 are inconsistent with the Article 19(1)(a) read with article13 of the Constitution of India, 1950?
• Whether pending proceedings will become vitiated after enforcement of Indian Constitution?
• Whether Article 13 has any retrospective effect?

Observation

• Justice Sudhi Ranjan Das:
  • All statutes have prospective effect unless specifically made retrospective or necessitated by implications.
  • Article 13 can have no retrospective effect but is wholly prospective.
  • Laws inconsistent with fundamental rights do not become void ab initio. They are not void for all purposes but to the extent they conflict with fundamental rights.
  • The effect of Article 13 is different from the effect of the expiry of temporary statutes.
  • The Constitution of India, 1950 does not provide a fundamental right where a person cannot be prosecuted and punished for an offense committed before the Constitution's commencement.
  • The appeal is dismissed.
• Justices Saiyid Fazl Ali, and Justice B.K. Mukherjea:
  • In the original draft of the Indian Constitution, the Constituent Assembly initially inserted the words “shall stand abrogated”, which were later replaced with “shall be void” under Article 13.
    • If the words “shall stand abrogated” had remained, it would have been easier to argue under Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, but those words were abandoned.
  • The word “void” is only used in Articles 13 and 154, where a specific law is repugnant to another law with greater sanctity.
  • There is no doubt that Article 13(1) has no retrospective effect.
  • If a law is treated as dead, actions commenced, prosecuted, and concluded under it cannot be reopened.
  • If the law rendering an act of an offence has been rendered ineffectual and nugatory, neither charges can be initiated, nor can a person be convicted.
• Justice M C Mahajan:
  • When the petitioner published the pamphlet, they had no fundamental rights and did not enjoy freedom of expression as guaranteed by the Indian Constitution.
  • When a statute is in operation, people suffer penalties, it provides rights, and is enforced by the court; when repealed, it is completely obliterated and was never passed by parliament, which is not logically possible.
  • He also dismisses the appeal.

Conclusion

• The petitions were dismissed on the basis that all pre-Constitutional laws would not become void after the commencement of the Indian Constitution.
• The court held that Article 13(1) does not have retrospective effect.
• The proceedings of the matter will continue and will not be affected by the commencement of the Indian Constitution.

Notes

• Article 13 (1), of the Constitution of India which says that “All laws in force in the territory of India immediately before the commencement of this Constitution, in so far as they are inconsistent with the provisions of this Part, shall, to the extent of such inconsistency, be void.”
• Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India provides “Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech, all citizens shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression”.