Case Note & Summary
The case involved a constitutional challenge to Section 2 of the East Punjab Movable Property (Requisitioning) Act, 1947, which empowered the State Government to requisition any movable property if it considered it necessary or expedient to do so. The respondent's truck had been requisitioned under this provision for famine relief work. The respondent challenged the validity of Section 2 on the ground that it conferred arbitrary and uncontrolled discretion on the executive, violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court, by a majority of 4:1, held that Section 2 was unconstitutional. The majority noted that the Act prescribed no guidelines for the exercise of the power of requisition; it did not require that the power be exercised only for a public purpose or in an emergency or special contingency; it did not require the officer to specify the purpose in the order; the power could be delegated to any officer, including a petty officer; and the compensation mechanism under Section 4 was wholly arbitrary as the amount was left to the State Government's determination. The Court further held that the fact that the Act was a pre-Constitution law did not protect it from Article 14 scrutiny, as Article 31(5) only protected against challenge under Article 31(2), not Article 14. Relying on Pannalal Binjraj v. Union of India and Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Shri Justice S. R. Tendolkar, the Court concluded that both conditions for striking down a law on the ground of discriminatory potential were satisfied: there was every possibility of real and substantial discrimination, and the Act impinged on the fundamental right to property. Justice K.K. Mathew dissented, reasoning that the expression 'necessary or expedient' when read with the implied public purpose of the statute provided sufficient guidance, and that discretionary power is not inherently discriminatory. He emphasised that courts should not strike down legislation on the assumption of abuse of power, and that the validity of a provision must be tested by its terms and not by hypothetical misapplication. The majority, however, declined to read a public purpose requirement into the section, stating that doing so would amount to judicial legislation. Ultimately, the Court declared Section 2 of the Act void and unenforceable.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Article 14 - Arbitrary and Uncontrolled Discretion - East Punjab Movable Property (Requisitioning) Act, 1947, Section 2 - Section 2 empowered the State Government to requisition any movable property if considered necessary or expedient, without any guidelines, public purpose requirement, or specification of purpose in the order - Held that conferment of absolute and uncontrolled discretion on the executive violates Article 14 and the provision is invalid (Paras Not mentioned). B) Constitutional Law - Article 14 - Pre-Constitution Laws and Article 31(5) - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 31(5), Article 14 - The Act being a pre-Constitution law is protected under Article 31(5) only against challenge under Article 31(2) and not against challenge under Article 14 - Held that Article 31(5) does not bar Article 14 scrutiny; the Act remains subject to equality analysis (Paras Not mentioned). C) Constitutional Law - Delegation of Power - Absence of Guidelines - East Punjab Movable Property (Requisitioning) Act, 1947, Sections 2, 4, 8 - The Act permitted delegation to any officer without specifying rank and provided no adequate machinery for determining compensation - Held that such uncanalised delegation and arbitrary compensation determination further demonstrate violation of Article 14 (Paras Not mentioned). D) Constitutional Law - Interpretation of Statutes - Implied Public Purpose - East Punjab Movable Property (Requisitioning) Act, 1947, Section 2 - Dissenting opinion of Mathew J. held that the phrase 'necessary or expedient' read with implied public purpose provides adequate guidance, and discretionary power is not necessarily discriminatory - Held that the section should be upheld as valid and not struck down on assumption of abuse (Paras Not mentioned).
Issue of Consideration
Whether Section 2 of the East Punjab Movable Property (Requisitioning) Act, 1947 is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India on the ground of conferring arbitrary and uncontrolled discretion upon the State Government and its officers.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court by a 4:1 majority held that Section 2 of the East Punjab Movable Property (Requisitioning) Act, 1947 is unconstitutional and void as it confers arbitrary powers and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The majority directed that the provision be struck down. Justice K.K. Mathew delivered a dissenting opinion, holding that the section was valid as the expression 'necessary or expedient' read with implied public purpose provided sufficient guidance.
Law Points
- Article 14 prohibits arbitrary and uncontrolled discretion
- statute must prescribe guidelines for executive discretion
- necessity or expediency alone not sufficient guideline
- pre-Constitution law not protected under Article 31(5) against Article 14 challenge
- delegation of requisitioning power to any officer without rank is arbitrary
- compensation determined by government without machinery violates Article 14
