Repealing Act Does Not Require Presidential Assent Merely Because Original Act Got President's Assent: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that the new Act repealing an old Act would not require a Presidential Assent under Article 254 of the Constitution. The Court rejected the argument that the repealing act needed presidential approval simply because the original act had received it. Instead, it said that if the repealing act corrects flaws in the old law, adapting it to current needs rather than renewing it, presidential assent is not necessary. “Moreover, the argument that the repeal should have required fresh presidential assent is misplaced. A repeal statute does not recreate the legal framework anew but rather extinguishes the earlier Act's operative provisions; it 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.”, the court observed. The aforesaid observation was made by a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Prasanna B Varale while hearing the case where the private vehicle operator based out of Karnataka approached the Supreme Court against the Karnataka High Court's decision refusing to maintain the constitutionality of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Act, 2003 (“2003 Act”) which repealed the Karnataka Contract Carriages (Acquisition) Act, 1976 (“KCCA”). The 2003 Act enabled the Secretary of the State Transport Authority (STA) to issue permits for contract carriages, special vehicles, tourist vehicles, and temporary vehicles. Previously, the 1976 Karnataka Contract Carriages (Acquisition) Act (“KCCA”) had restricted this authority to the STA, but that law was repealed by the 2003 Act upholding the delegation of authority from STA to its Secretary to issue such permits. Briefly put, the Karnataka Contract Carriages (Acquisition) Act, 1976, was enacted to acquire private contract carriages and bring them under state control. The Act was upheld by the Supreme Court in previous judgments. Section 3 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Act, 2003 (2003 Repeal Act) repealed the 1976 Act, allowing the delegation to issue permits to the Secretary of STA ensuring private operators greater participation in the transport sector. The Karnataka High Court had struck down the delegation of permit-granting powers to the STA Secretary, declaring the 2003 Act unconstitutional. The High Court reasoned that, while the 1976 Act had been submitted for presidential consideration, the 2003 Act had not been. The Respondent opposed the Appellant's appeal arguing that no repeal was possible without having the President's Assent to the repealing Act. Thus, the Respondent supported the High Court's decision to hold the 2003 Act unconstitutional informed by the lack of the President's assent. Setting aside the High Court's decision, the judgment authored by Justice Vikram Nath observed that when the State Legislature had the plenary power to enact the law, then it also had the power to repeal the law, justifying the repeal of the 1976 Act. Since the repeal of the 1976 Act was a policy decision intended to liberalize the transport sector and address the shortage of public transport services, the Court noted that no fresh Presidential assent was required for repealing the 1976 Act as it did not contradict prior judicial rulings but reflected a legislative policy shift. “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 legislative intent, as clearly articulated in the 2003 Repeal Act, was to improve public transport services and to rectify the shortcomings of the earlier regulatory regime. Accordingly, we hold that Section 3 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Act, 2003, which repeals the KCCA Act, is constitutional. The KSRTC challenging the repeal on these grounds have failed to establish any defect in the exercise of the Legislature's power.”, the court observed.Also From Judgment: Supreme Court Upholds Karnataka Law Which Delegates Power Of Issuing Transport Permits To STA SecretaryCase Title: M/S S.R.S. TRAVELS BY ITS PROPRIETOR K.T. RAJASHEKAR VERSUS THE KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION WORKERS & ORS.Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 166Click here to read/download the judgment

Repealing Act Does Not Require Presidential Assent Merely Because Original Act Got President's Assent: Supreme Court

Yash Mittal

Tags