In so far as points Nos. (iii) and (iv) are concerned, if the law passed by a Legislature is struck down by the Courts as being invalid for one or the other reason, it would be competent for the appropriate Legislature to cure the said infirmity and pass a validating law so as to make the provisions of the said earlier law effective from the date when it was passed. (See: Rai Ramakrishna vs. State of Bihar, MANU/SC/0031/1963 : AIR 1963 SC 1667). The Legislature can pass a retrospectively validating action taken under a law which was void because it contravened fundamental rights. If the legislature can by retrospective legislation, cure the invalidity of action taken in pursuance of laws which are void for want of legislative competence and can validate such action by appropriate provisions, the same power can be effectively exercised by the Legislature for validating action taken under laws which are void for the reason that they contravened fundamental rights. (See: West Ramnad Electric Distributioon Co. Ltd. vs. State of Madras, MANU/SC/0060/1962 : AIR 1962 SC 1753). It was held that Legislature can change the basis on which a decision is given by the Court, and thus change the law in general, which will affect a class of persons and events at large. The Legislature can render judicial decisions ineffective by enacting a valid law on the topic within its legislative field fundamentally altering or changing its character retrospectively. The changed or altered conditions should be such that the previous decision would not have been rendered by the Court; if those conditions had existed at the time of declaring the law as invalid. It is also empowered to give effect to retrospective legislation with a deeming date or with effect from a particular date. (See: Indian Aluminium Company vs. State of Kerala, MANU/SC/0370/1996 : AIR 1996 SC 1431).
And it is also laid down by the Apex court in Grand Kakatiya Sheraton Hotel and Towers Employees and Workers Union vs. Srinivasa Resorts Limited and others, MANU/SC/0436/2009 : (2009) 5 SCC 342, in a situation where in circumstances that a statute is held to be unconstitutional, the offending provisions are sought to be reintroduced with cosmetic changes, as in the present case on hand, thus:
"62. Section 40(3) is clearly comparable to Section 47(3) and also Section47(4), as the last part of that section is identical with the wording in Section 47(4). The only difference which we find is that instead of the word "gratuity", the terminology of "service compensation" is substituted. In our opinion, the High Court was right in opining that a mere cosmetic amendment could not have been made by way of introduction of Sections47(3) and 47(4). It was tried to be argued before us that in the present 1988 Act, the mischief pointed out by the High Court in the earlier Section40(3) of the 1966 Act has been remedied. We are unable to agree with such an argument. We do not see as to how and in what manner, the mischief has been remedied.
64. The High Court also noted that the provisions of Sections 47(3) and47(4) were nothing, but a cosmetic amendment to the earlier Section40(3). It is, therefore, clear that no attempt has been made, whatsoever, to point out (sic remedy) the mischief found by the High Court in Section40(3) of the 1966 Act.
70. The High Court found that instead of remedying the defects point out in Suryapet Coop. Mktg. Society Ltd. v. Munsif Magistrate, (1972) 2 An LT 163 a cosmetic change was made by raising the period of six months to one year. We are, therefore, unable to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the High Court proceeded on to decide the constitutionality on the basis of a comparison. We do not, therefore, see how the aforementioned judgment in State of M.P. v. G.C. Mandawar, MANU/SC/0135/1954 : AIR 1954 SC 493, can be of any application and help to the present case."
Thus, it can be safely said that amendment was brought about by Act No. 13 of 2012, bad in law for the above reason.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (DHARWAD BENCH)
Writ Petition Nos. 64805-64868, 65648-65680 of 2011 (GM-R/C), 72157 of 2012 and 80796-80822 of 2013 (GM-R/C) and 65539 of 2012 (GM-R/C)
Decided On: 17.11.2015
Appellants: Shri Maha Ganapati Shankara Devasthana and Ors.
Vs.
Respondent: State of Karnataka and Ors.
Vs.
Respondent: State of Karnataka and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:Anand Byrareddy and S. Sujatha, JJ.
