It is not essential that every Law infected by the government should be in conformity with the constitution
Answers
Answer
Statement of Objects and Reasons appended to the Constitution
(Fortieth Amendment) Bill, 1975 which was enacted as
the Constitution (Thirty-ninth Amendment) Act, 1975
STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS
Article 71 of the Constitution provides that disputes arising out of
the election of the President or Vice-President shall be decided by
the Supreme Court. The same article provides that matters relating to
their election shall be regulated by a parliamentary law. So far as
the Prime Minister and the Speaker are concerned, matters relating to
their election are regulated by the provisions of the Representation
of the People Act, 1951. Under this Act the High Court has
jurisdiction to try an election petition presented against either of
them.
2. The President, the Vice-President, the Prime Minister and the
Speaker are holders of high offices. The President is not answerable
to a court of law for anything done, while in office, in the exercise
of his powers. A fortiori matters relating to his election should not
be brought before a court of law but should be entrusted to a forum
other than a court. The same reasoning applies equally to the
incumbents of the offices of Vice-President, Prime Minister and
Speaker. It is accordingly proposed to provide that disputes relating
to the election of the President and Vice-President shall be
determined by a forum as may be determined by a parliamentary law.
Similar provision is proposed to be made in the case of the election
to either House of Parliament or, as the case may be, to the House of
the People of a person holding the office of Prime Minister or the
Speaker. It is further proposed to render pending proceedings in
respect of such election under the existing law null and void. The
Bill also provides that the parliamentary law creating a new forum for
trial of election matters relating to the incumbents of the high
offices abovementioned shall not be called in question in any court.
3. Recourse was had in the past to the Ninth Schedule whenever it was
found that progressive legislation conceived in the interests of the
public was imperilled by litigation. It has become necessary to have
recourse to this device once again now. Between 1971 and 1973
legislation was enacted for nationalising coking coal and coal mines
for conservating these resources in the interests of steel industry.
These enactments have been brought before courts on the ground that
they are unconstitutional. So is the case of sick textile
undertakings which were nationalised in 1974. To prevent smuggling of
goods and diversion of foreign exchange which affected national
economy Parliament enacted legislation which again has been challenged
in the Supreme Court and in High Courts. These and other important
and special enactments which it is considered necessary should have
the constitutional protection under article 31B, are proposed to be
included in the Ninth Schedule. Certain State legislations relating
to land reform and ceiling on agricultural land holdings have already
been included in the Ninth Schedule. Certain amendments made to these