T. Venkata Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh
Supreme Court of India, 27 March 1985, 5 judges, 1985 AIR 724, 1985 SCR (3) 509, 1985 SCC (3) 198
The Court upheld the Andhra Pradesh Ordinance abolishing posts of part-time village officers, holding that an ordinance is law not open to challenge for non-application of mind, and that completed transactions do not revive when it lapses.
Facts
Village offices in the Andhra and Telangana areas of Andhra Pradesh were originally hereditary and part-time. After a Village Officers Enquiry Committee recommended reorganisation with full-time officers, the Governor on January 6, 1984 promulgated under Article 213 the Andhra Pradesh Abolition of Posts of Part-time Village Officers Ordinance, 1984. Section 3 abolished the posts from that date and the holders ceased to hold them; other provisions created posts of Village Assistants and provided for payment of amounts to ex-officers. A Bill to replace the Ordinance was introduced but not passed, and four successive ordinances followed. Part-time village officers challenged the Ordinance by petitions under Article 32; similar petitions in the High Court were withdrawn to the Supreme Court under Article 139A.
Questions before the Court
- Can an ordinance be struck down for non-application of mind by the Governor or because circumstances did not warrant it?
- When an ordinance lapses without being replaced by an Act, do posts abolished by it revive?
- Did the abolition of posts violate the petitioners' rights under Article 21?
What the Court held
- An ordinance under Article 123 or 213 has the same force as an Act and carries all the attributes, immunities and limitations of legislation. It cannot be treated as executive or administrative action.
- Legislative action is subject only to constitutional limits. Courts cannot examine the motives of the legislature, whether it applied its mind, or the propriety, expediency and necessity of the law; the same applies to an ordinance.
- Article 213(2) says an ordinance ceases to operate, not that it is void from the start. Abolition of the posts under section 3 was a completed event on January 6, 1984, and was not reversed when the Ordinance ceased to operate, following State of Orissa v. Bhupendra Kumar Bose.
- The legislature may restore the earlier position by an express retrospective law, but mere disapproval of an ordinance cannot revive closed or completed transactions.
- Abolition of the posts did not deprive the petitioners of life or liberty under Article 21. The petitions were dismissed, with a note that the State should honour its affidavit about considering qualified petitioners for Village Assistant posts.
Why it matters
The judgment holds that an ordinance is legislation, so its validity is tested like that of an Act and not on grounds such as non-application of mind or mala fides used for executive action. It also holds that transactions completed under an ordinance do not revive when it lapses or is disapproved, unless the legislature passes an express retrospective law, applying the Bhupendra Kumar Bose principle on temporary statutes.
In the Court's words
Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.
“The motives of the legislature in passing a statute is beyond the scrutiny of courts. Nor can the courts examine whether the legislature had applied its mind to the provisions of a statute before passing it. The propriety expediency and necessity of a legislative act are for the determination of the legislative authority and are not for determination by the courts. An ordinance passed either under Article 123 or under Article 213 of the Constitution stands on the same footing.”
“When the Constitution says that the ordinance making power is legislative power and an ordinance shall have the same force as an Act, an ordinance should be clothed with all the attributes of an Act of legislature carrying with it all its incidents, immunities and limitations under the Constitution. It cannot be treated as an executive action or an administrative decision.”
“It is seen that Article 213 of the Constitution does not say that the Ordinance shall be void from the commencement on the State Legislature disapproving it. It says that it shall cease to operate. It only means that it should be treated as being effective till it ceases to operate on the happening of the events mentioned;”
“In the petitions before us also the position is the same as in the decision referred to above. The abolition of the posts and the declaration that the incumbents of those posts would cease to be holders of those posts under section 3 of the Ordinance being completed events, there is no question of their revival or the petitioners continuing to hold those posts any longer.”
Provisions interpreted
- Article 213, Constitution
- Article 123, Constitution
- Article 21, Constitution
- Article 162, Constitution
- Section 3, Andhra Pradesh Abolition of Posts of Part-time Village Officers Ordinance, 1984
Related judgments
- Follows State of Orissa v. Bhupendra Kumar Bose (1961)“In the petitions before us also the position is the same as in the decision referred to above.” (page 16)
Case and bench
- Parties
- T. Venkata Reddy etc. etc. v. State of Andhra Pradesh
- Case
- Writ Petition Nos. 623, 1546/84 etc. etc. (Original Jurisdiction, under Article 32)
- Decided
- 27 March 1985
- Bench
- Chandrachud, Y.V. (CJ), Desai, D.A., Reddy, O. Chinnappa (J), Venkataramiah, E.S. (J), Misra Rangnath
- Opinions
- Unanimous. The judgment of the Court was delivered by Venkataramiah, J.
Questions on this case
1 question in live Law Maker papers mentions this case. Practise them with the landmark judgments questions.