'No Judicial Review Of Bill Before Governor's Assent': Orissa High Court Declines PIL Against Bill Seeking To Hike MLA Salaries

The Orissa High Court has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the Odisha Legislative Assembly Members' Salary, Allowances and Pension (Amendment) Bill, 2025 ('the Bill') which is slated to hike the salary of the Members of Legislative Assembly (MLAs) by almost three times, making it the highest for the legislators in the entire country.Holding the challenge to the Bill to be premature, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman observed –“Introduction of the Bill, 2025 is not an empty formality but conveys the Legislative Will or the intention of the makers of the law what they intended to enact and it would be complete by assent of the Governor or the President. Mere Legislative Will in pursuit of an enactment is not amenable to be assailed before the writ Court as it does not fulfil the definition of law or the legislation perceived in the provisions of the Constitution of India.”The Legislative Assembly of Odisha on 09.12.2025 passed the Bill which entails a significant upward surge in salary of the MLAs. The Bill, which is to come into effect retrospectively from 5th June 2024, takes the pay of the Chief Minister to ₹3.74 lakh per month, comprising salary, allowances, including sumptuary allowance of ₹1.83 lakh. The Deputy Chief Minister's revised monthly salary is proposed to be ₹3.68 lakh, while the Cabinet Ministers and Ministers of State shall draw a salary of ₹3.62 lakh and ₹3.56 lakh respectively. Pending the Governor's assent, the petitioner Kabita Patra, a practising Advocate at the High Court, impugned such legislative will on the ground of its unconstitutionality. However, the State vehemently questioned the maintainability of such litigation at the threshold. Advocate General Pitambar Acharya questioned the admissibility of such challenge as the Bill is yet to become an Act pending the gubernatorial assent. The thrust of argument on behalf of the State was that the constitutionality of a Bill can only be assailed after the same becomes a full-fledged legislation upon receiving the assent of the Governor. Therefore, any challenge to the provisions of a Bill is premature and stands in derogation to the settled principles of law and precedent. To substantiate the above stance, the State relied upon the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Chhotey Lal v. The State of Uttar Pradesh (1951), wherein a Division Bench of the Court held –“It is necessary to understand exactly how and in what circumstances courts declare laws invalid or unconstitutional. Until a Bill has become law, the legislative process not being complete, courts do not come into the picture at all. It is not the function of any court or judge to declare void or directly annul a law the moment it has been promulgated. Courts are not a supervisory body over the Legislature. Their approval or disapproval is not needed for an Act passed by the Legislature to have the force of law. Their function is interpretative.”The Bench placed further reliance on the recent opinion of the Apex Court in Special Reference No.1 of 2025 (Assent, Withholding or Reservation of Bills by the Governor and the President of India), 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1124, wherein a five-judge bench opined as follows –“Therefore, the judicial review of a Bill, that is anterior to its enactment as law, is unheard of and unfathomable in our constitutional practice and history. Judicial review of a legislation is premised on the fact that it will be considered by the Court, only after it has been made into law-i.e., assented by the Governor or President as the case may be, and brought into force. It is this judicial review over legislation that our constitutionalism envisages, and this particular form is an essential feature of our basic structure.”Having regard for the aforesaid rulings, the Court opined that mere introduction of the Bill or placing the same on the floor of the House for further discussion at the nebulous stage, cannot be characterized as the legislation or the law, unless it has taken a shape of the Act after receiving the consent and/or approval of the Governor. It thus concluded –“The meaningful reading of the law declared by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India leaves no ambiguity that the writ Court should refrain from entertaining the writ petition at the stage of a Bill, unless it is converted into an Act after undergoing the process and/or procedures provided in the Constitution of India. It is still at the rudimentary stage not affecting the rights of a person or the citizens, unless the same is transformed into a full fledges [sic] legislation.”Resultantly, the writ petition/PIL was dismissed.Case Title: Kabita Patra v. State of Odisha & Ors.Case No: W.P.(C) No. 36970 of 2025Date of Judgment: December 23, 2025Counsel for the Petitioner: M/s. Srinivas Mohanty, Sujit Kumar Acharya & Sushree Ranjan, AdvocatesCounsel for the Respondents: Mr. Pitambar Acharya, Advocate General...

'No Judicial Review Of Bill Before Governor's Assent': Orissa High Court Declines PIL Against Bill Seeking To Hike MLA Salaries

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags