 Good evening one and all. Today, we thought why not take a topic which other lawyer or any professional would like to understand what is the legislative process and contours of legislative powers of union and state legislature. While discussing about it, we hope that Mr. B.T. Brin Harindranath, an advocate and a former district and session judge, plus a resource person in the National Judicial Academy and the Kerala Judicial Academy would also take us on some point what would be the doctrine of repigency or how the state acts upon within the ambit of this article 254 of the Constitution of India. Since it's a Sunday, I will not take much time. I will straight away ask Mr. Harindranath, who has been a regular resource person and sessions are doing extremely well on our session on the platform of Beyond Law CLC, you can watch that if you're not subscribed to the channel, you can even do that. Over to you Mr. Harindranath and thank you on behalf of the team of Beyond Law for accepting our invite. Good evening everybody. Very good evening. Vikas Chhatra and other members of the CLC. Now, see I had spent my five years of my career, almost five years of my career as a law secretary to the government of Kerala. Actually, I was appointed by the Umanjandi government when I was the district and session judge. I was at that time in the Kerala Judicial Academy. I was sent on deputation. And later, when the new government under the LDF, that is the Left Democratic Front, came to power, I continued as a law secretary. So I had a lot of opportunity to draft legislation. I had to sit in the assembly when the legislation's bills are being moved. I had to participate in the subjects committee meetings where the members voice their doubts, you had to clear them. And other than performing other duties, like rendering legal opinion to the government and important matters, a large part of my work was as the primary looking after legislation. And a lot of legislations were passed during that time. So, most of us who are lawyers, as well as judges, you know, we do not have the first time knowledge of how government works and how a legislation is enacted, how it originates and then how discussing the legislative assembly. And then the final product is signed by the governor, when it becomes the act of the legislature or when it is signed by the president, it becomes the act of the parliament. So this is how things go in the government. I actually was fortunate to practice in the High Court. And my senior, Mr. KP Dandavani, later became the advocate general. That was how I landed as the law secretary because the government and the advocate general wanted a person who was known to him. And then the Chief Justice also at that point of time, thought that I was, I was in one of the senior most district judges in the state of Kerala. I have varied experience as a professor in the National Judicial Academy for about one year. At that time, Dr. Mohan Gopal, who occasionally now appears before the Supreme Court and Dr. Mohan Gopal is now appearing in the Kerala High Court also with me in one case. Which is pertaining to the Shabirimala, controversial Shabirimala priest case. Now I'm practicing in the High Court. So, now, before we start this, go into the constitutional aspects of the matter, I would like to tell you from my experience as to what happens in the legislature. In fact, legislative assembly is a very, there is, there always used to be heated exchanges between the members. Walkout, sit-ins, and so many things do happen on the political sphere. But I have, I became an admirer of the legislative process. Because, you know, when the bills are taken up, most of the members, they really participate, they read through the bills. And then each clause is debated. And then, whenever the minister, some doubts are voiced by or some objections are raised by opposition members. What happens is that we sit just behind the treasury bench. You must have seen in the parliament also there is a small opening there where officers sit. So immediately papers will be passed to us. And then as a law secretary, I will have to advise the minister, the minister who's piloting the bill as to how we should answer this or what is the legal point which has to be answered or put across. And then I will tell you in detail how it happens. Now, this is how the legislative process functions. And then finally, the bill comes to shape. And if you, despite all this, when it goes to the high court, again, some mistakes may be pointed out. And then sometimes the bill itself, some provisions may be struck down. These all these things happen. But nonetheless, the legislative process is something where the law department as well as the administrative department of the government which proposes the bill. It gives a very serious thought to it. And as the minister who the minister who pilots the bill, the minister of the administrative department also is very much involved in the process of legislation. Now, let me first take you to what happens exactly. Exactly. See, every government has what is called the rules of business of the government. You know, under Article 154 of the Constitution of India, the entire executive power is vested in the governor. So far as it's state legislature is concerned. Corresponding provision 73 is vested in the president. So the entire executive power under article I will only take you to the state legislature because there is the executive power shall be vested in the governor. That is what the Constitution stays Article 154. The executive power of the state shall be vested in the governor and shall be exercised in either directly or through officers subordinate to him in accordance with the Constitution. Now, I'm not going to the other details. You all know that we since we follow the Westminster style of functioning, the governor can only act in accordance with the aid and advice given by the Council of Ministers. Ultimately, it is the Council of Ministers who take a decision in this matter advice the governor on what he should do and what he should not do in a particular executive matter. In Manuraam's case, the Constitution bench decision, Justice Krishna is very pitiless said that whether he likes it or not, the governor is bound by the advice of the Council of Ministers, except in certain matters where he has discretion that is like whom he should call to be the chief minister of the state or there are some matters like that where he has got his discretionary powers which is delineated in the Constitution itself. But so far as all other executive functions are concerned where this power is not there, the governor has to act in accordance with the aid and advice given by the Council of Ministers. This is a settled proposition that you should always understand. Now, see, suppose you say every executive action, the governor has to seek the advice of the Council of Ministers. It becomes an impossibility because every time small matters also, if governor has to consult the Council of Ministers, the government, it will be a very laborious process. The constitution itself, taking cue from the Government of India Act has devised a methodology whereby that is under Article 166-3 for the Constitution of India. The governor is empowered to pass rules of business of the government. Here we have rules of business of the government of Kerala, every state has got the rules of business. We will have the Haryana rules of business for Haryana, Panjab Di Mila, Panjab rules of business, which is promulgated by the governor. It is under Article 166-3 of the Constitution of India. The allocation of business is divided into various departments and the allocation of business is among ministers. It is not allocation of business is not among the secretaries of the department or other subordinate of business, but under Article 166-3 of the Constitution of India, since he has to follow the advice of the Council of Ministers, the allocation of business is among ministers of various departments. When you carefully read 166-3, this will be evident. And the portfolios of each, that is in accordance with the advice given by the Chief Minister. Because Chief Minister is the first among, though he is called first among equals, he has got the power to remove a minister. He can advise the governor to remove a minister. I think I am audible, is it not? Hello? Yeah, audible. Okay. So Council of Ministers, that is what 166-3 is about. And the superior decisions say that 166-3 is the rules of business. If there is a decision is taken, if it is not in accordance with the rules of business, the decision will be void. Now, rules of business contains, you see there is the, suppose there is a home department, which is in charge of police and administration, criminal procedure, court and other matters. No, we have the water department, we have the department for electricity industry. These are all departments of separate ministers, the revenue department, land and revenue will have a separate minister. So how does the legislation come? See, almost all rules of business say that because the law department is not the administrative department, it is only the capacity of an advisory department. The rules of business, most of the rules of business says that the legislative process or the proposal ought to come from the administrative department, particular administrative department, that bill is proposed by the administrative department. And then when the administrative department takes a decision to propose a bill for some contingency which arises or an amendment to the existing act, then the proposal to initiate the legislation under the rules of business. I'm only dealing with the Kerala government rules of business. Of course, other rules of business of other state governments are also all model. They are almost similar. There will not be any significant difference. See, it is submitted to the chief minister because he is the head of the council of ministers. And when it is submitted to the chief minister, when the chief minister is consulted, then the proposal as such is sent to the law department. So the legislation, it comes to the law department. The law department then examines the question whether the bill is, whether the legislature does have the power to ask such a bill. For that, we immediately go through the provisions of the constitution, especially Article 246 in the constitution of India. And so the administrative department, and it comes to the law department, and law department then examines in accordance with the, there is what is called the seventh schedule in the constitution. And Article 246 of the constitution of India says that the state legislature, it is not called the power of, loosely they don't say the power of the legislature, power to legislate, but it is called the field of legislation. Separate fields of legislation are set out as per Chapter 1, I'm sorry, Part 9, Chapter 1 of the constitution of India, where extended the laws which can be made by the parliament and state legislature are laid down. Article 246 says that parliament has the exclusive power to make laws on subjects which are enumerated in the first list of the seventh schedule. And then the second list of the seventh schedule, the state governments have the exclusive power to pass laws. And the third list, which is called the concurrent list, listed in the seventh schedule, where the power of the field of legislation is again parliament can pass and then the state legislature also can pass. But then when there is a conflict, Article 254 of the constitution of India will deal, I will come to that, what happens when there is a conflict between the state legislation and the legislation passed by the parliament. Now these fields of legislation are clearly enumerated in the constitution, list 1, 2, and 3 of the seventh schedule of the constitution. Now look at this, look at it this way, now the enumeration is done in the constitution, but nonetheless, even though there is a clear enumeration, there are penimbral areas, you know what penimbral is. The penimbral areas overlap, sometimes the legislation of the state, the subject may overlap the part of the functions of the enumerated for the central legislation. And then there are bound to be conflicts, and then how do we resolve these conflicts, that is one another aspect which we have several Supreme Court decisions, some of which I will definitely take you. Now we come back, now once the law department examines and says that this legislation is legally permissible, because if it is in the second list, obviously the state legislature can pass. If it is in the third list, we will examine whether there are any central legislations on the point. Even if there are central legislations on the subject, the state legislature again can legislate, but only thing is that for it to have a force of law, it will have to be sent to the president for ascent, as contemplated under article 54. State legislation, once it receives the ascent of the president, it will eclipse the central legislation, even in the case of a repugnancy. But if there is no ascent by the president of India, then the state legislation will be void to the extent of repugnancy, that is what is stated in article 254 of the Constitution of India. Now this is how the legislative relations are there. Now once we go through this, what we do is we send our report to the administrative department, we say first you can go through with the legislation. There is no legal impediment, constitutional impediment. And then they formulate their policies, their reasons and objects and reasons for the legislation. And then it comes back to the law department. Now the law department's role at that point of time is to give it a technical shape in the form of the legislation. In other words, draft it section by section, clause by clause. And then send it back. And once you send it back under the rules of business, it again goes through the law minister, to the minister of the administrative department. And then it goes to the chief minister who places it before the council of ministers. Once the council of ministers passes this, I mean, takes a decision to go forward with the legislation, then it comes to the assembly. It is sent to the assembly. Now, every assembly, every legislative department of every assembly has a, again, rules of business, rules of procedure of the legislative assembly, which you can download it from the websites of legislative assemblies. This is also framed in accordance with the constitution. Now, so far as Kerala is concerned, there is a separate chapter for this. Every rules of procedure of all legislatures in India, as well as the parliament will have rules of procedure of the parliament or legislative assembly as the case may be. Now, before the introduction, the bill is published. Now, because we are in the electronic mode, you find it published in the website of the assembly. And the bill, then the bill has to be moved by the, when it is published, when the assembly meets, then there will be days will be allotted for government business. There will be private members will separate days will be allotted to that, that I will come later. But we are concerned more with the government bill, private members bill if the treasury benches accepted, only then it will go through the process of becoming a bill. If it is rejected at the threshold, whatever it be, reasons we, the private members bill will be thrown out. Now, after the publication of the bill on the date fixed for the government business, the bill is listed for discussion, taking up, for discussion, it will be there. Now, it will be published in the assembly's agenda. Now, look at this, this way. Assembly is a very, as I told you, my experience with the assembly is the first, when I went there, after a few days I went to the assembly. Even the finance minister was moving the budget. He was placing it before the table of the, it was a big ruckus in the Kerala assembly, you must have seen. There was almost, they went up the dice of the speaker. It was a big commotion, the speaker barely function. If suppose the budget is not passed, what an account is not passed, there will be a complete breakdown of the constitutional machinery. Unless the vote on account is passed, you know, the government will not be able to spend one, a single paisa. That is from the consolidated fund, they will not be able to withdraw any money. But, however, despite the ruckus, after that, the vote on account and budget vote on account was passed, bill was, that is there. Now, I come back to, so, see, you know what the zero hour does in the parliament, it is called the zero hour. Zero hour is a time when on urgent matters, basically the opposition wants a special discussion. The assemblies, other work will be, should be stopped for discussing that particular matter. And the, some member will raise it. And then if the speaker feels that it is not necessary to discuss it, he will say that he will reject the, then there will be again, once it is rejected, there will be an opposition to walk out, and they will come back after that. It is a kind of a thing which happens in the legislature, which I have always seen, there will be a discussion on this, because it will be moved. And then there will be a reply, either by the chief minister or by the opposition, I mean, Treasury benches. And then after listening to that, like we hear in both sides of the argument, speaker will say that, okay, there is no need for stopping the business of the assembly and start discussing this. Maybe it is not necessary. Now, you look at this in Kerala, the other day, we had a fire broke out in the waste disposal plant in Brahmapuram. And the whole city of Kutchi where I am living, it was a real havoc here. There was a discussion in the legislative assembly on that, somebody on the zero hour, this was brought by the opposition. There was a speech by the opposition leader, and the reply by the minister concerned, and that was the end of it. The discussion, the stopping of the assembly's case work was not permitted, opposition walked off. They went and out, and then that is how, then even then the business of the assembly will continue. So after all this, the bills are taken up. That is why I just wanted to explain what happens in the assembly region. Then there is a motion to introduce the bill by the minister concerned. So what he does that, now suppose a motion to introduce the bill, any member of the legislative assembly, especially the opposition benches, any member can object to that. Saying that, look here, this bill is not necessary and it is illegal. It is not within the legislative component. So the state legislature, this can be raised by the member of the opposition. So what happens is, there is a debate on that. We are not a very long lengthy debate. And finally, the speaker will rule that no, this bill can go on because it is legally sustainable. It has the legislative field is reserved for the state legislature. There is no question of not having jurisdiction to consider the bill. So after speaker's ruling, sometimes when these tricky questions of law come up, we as a law department, our team will be there. I will also be almost, we will also be sitting there, we will write. And you see, I used to write this in Malayalam because you have to write in the vernacular language. The language of the assembly is Malayalam. There is a language of the High Court and the Supreme Court is English. And I being a person, slight handicap does not write to say that I can write my mother tongue, I can write well. But nonetheless, these legal terminology, we always used to find it difficult to, because you have to produce it, extemple immediately. And then it is given and that ruling comes. Now, then, now there is this bill is introduced. Now there is, see, you find that introduction of the bill. And then the bill is moved. I will take you to the provisions of the constitution where the state legislature generally. And then I will take you to the, what happens after the, now, there are two kinds of bills. One is money bill. And the other is non-money bills. Now, article 199 deals with money bill, which defines what money bill is. For instance, there are A to G, there are, which is enumerated, those that come under A to G are money bills. Why I am saying is this because, see, there are separate procedure for money bill and the non-money bills, which comes under article 192, 992. Now, when there are bicameral legislatures, like we have in the parliament, we have two houses. One is the Lok Sabha, the other is the Rajya Sabha. Money bill need not be introduced in the Rajya Sabha. It need not go to the Rajya Sabha. Money bill can be considered by the Lok Sabha itself and then the decision can be taken there. For instance, budget in other matters, imposition of tax and other, it comes under the money bill. So, if one party does not have majority, sometimes there is a tendency to bypass this. In a bicameral legislature, what happens is that the ruling party may have people's, that is corresponding, the Vidhan Sabha. We have the assembly, when there are two, the main assembly where elected representatives are there, Vidhan Sabha. This is the ruling party, we have majority in the other house, that is the upper house. They may not have the majority. So, what they do is, even bills which do not actually come within the real definition of money bills, they make it a money bill, so that it should go through. So then, when question whether one bill introduced is a money bill or not, whether it should go to the other or not, has to be decided by the speaker under Article 199. Now, so far as speaker's decision on the questions are concerned, the Supreme Court has held, not stating the decision. The Supreme Court has categorically held that this relates to the business of the legislature and it is not just the same. If suppose the speaker holds that it is a money bill, they may not go to the upper house or even in the parliament, they may not go to the Rajya Sabha. Now, 199.2 says that even if the money bill, 199.1 defines a money bill, 199.2 says that if there are in a bill, if there are imposition of fines or say fees etc. That by itself does not make it a money bill. For instance, you see local authorities to find local authorities, local authorities or municipalities, Punjab, they may leave fees and there is imposition of fine and other things for local purposes. Legislature has the power to pass the bill. Those bills, they are not money bills because money bill, it goes to the consolidated fund of the state, the collection of taxes and other things. So this is a bill for imposition of fines and fees for certain other purposes like the local self-government department, institutions like Punjayat and municipality etc. So both have different procedure contemplated. Now in the matter of bills, other than money bills, for instance the passing of a particular bill may involve expenditure from the state extractor, from the consolidated fund of the state. So then there should be a memorandum appended to that, which should be Governors, because it should go to the finance department, finance departments. Concurrents will be necessary for the financial aspect and then there should be an endorsement by the governor concerned under article 204. So far as bills are concerned if it involves expenditure. Now the bill comes to the legislative assembly. Then what happens is that bill is tabled and then it is moved. Now you find when the bill is moved in the assembly, as I said, the first time is publication and movie. Any legislature can oppose the bill stating that it is not within the competence. Now after the ruling is over, what happens is that the bill is, there is a discussion on the bill and then the bill is sent to the subjects committee of the legislature for detailed examinations. See what there is an introduction, after the introduction of the bill. There are two possibilities, one is that it can be sent to the subjects committee because the legislative assembly will have subjects committees. On particular subject, on agricultural there will be a subject committee, which is basically comprises the members of the assembly. They will form a subject committee for agriculture, for revenue matters there will be another subject committee. Then it will go to the subject committee, they will threadbare examine each provisions, each provision will be examined by the subjects committee. And subject committee discussions, as law secretary I always have to be present there because many of the complications and many of the legal aspects. I found that some of the legislatures, you know, members MLA's, they are lawyers and well versed in constitutional law and therefore they know the in and out of legislative procedure as well as the constitutional law and other things. So they will invariably, they will participate in full and there is a complete discussion of the bill in the subjects committee. And once the, it is cleared by the subjects committee comes back to the legislature with the report of the subjects committee, with some modifications because subjects committee will be chaired by the minister of the administrative department. Once there was a question, you know, one tricky question problem. In fact, we had the Padi, conservation of Padi and wetland act in Kerala. So after some, there was some dispute between the constituents of the left democratic government, nonetheless the administrative department after a committee they brought forth a bill which was presented, which came before the subjects committee. So some members of the subjects committee in the ruling party, they had some reservations about it. So one member of the constituent of the small party in the ruling coalition, he said this position should not be there. Opposition members also said that it should not be. Then opposition members dissent was recorded. Then the question arose what, what will we do with the dissent of the ruling party coalition member. Then I told the, I was a member, sir, you are, if your dissent is recorded, as I understand there is a whip. Whip has been issued by the government in this matter. Now, suppose you dissent, the whip is there, you're likely to lose your membership, then immediately we do, I will voice it in the assembly. Now, then it came back to the assembly, this bill, discussion, it was taken up for discussion in the assembly. And then there is a clause, first the preamble and the short title or the long preamble will be discussed and the short title will be discussed. And then clause by clause reading will be there. Now, during all this, the members can suggest their amendments, it should be given in writing. And there will be a lot of, if there is no fight and walk out and other things, if they are fully participating, sometimes what happens is that there is a big ruckus in the assembly, then opposition members will be shouting. And because of the shortage of time and because the bill is very important for the treasury bench, despite the shouting, they will read clause by clause and then the speaker will say it is passed. But when this does not happen, when the members, opposition and the ruling party, they fully participate in the bill, that is what I am saying. It happens in the olden days and all, it was a full-fledged discussion. In the olden days, sometimes you know what happens. But then if there is a full discussion by the members, clause by clause reading, the members including the ruling party and the opposition can suggest their amendments. And they have to give it beforehand in writing. So my experience is that previous day, evening, we will get all the suggested amendments. And sometimes we find that the suggested amendments are better than the words used by us in the law or the minister may feel that this is a better idea, how we should go about. Then we have a full-fledged discussion in the evening. And then we take all which amendment should be rejected, which amendment should be accepted. And then next day in the assembly, these amendments will be, I mean, the clause by clause reading will be there. So the first clause will be read and then some members' amendment will be put. Then the minister will say this is accepted. If it is accepted, it will become part of the bill. And if it is rejected, it goes on like that. And then finally, there is again a third reading of the bill. See, it's a very elaborate process. After the third reading of the bill, the bill itself is taken as passed. And then what happens is that it just, after it is passed from the legislative assembly, it comes back to us. Then under the rules of business, the law secretary will have to give a certificate that the constitutional provisions are all right. It has been followed. And then it is sent to the governor for assent and the governor assents. There have been instances where governor has not assented. He may have his own reservations about it. And then he has got the part to send it back to the legislative assembly. Then the legislative assembly can consider it. And once the legislative assembly sends it back second time, the governor is bound to accept. He has no other way out. He has to sign the bill. Now, governor has got a separate product in this. The Supreme Court decision says that if the governor finds on a reading of the bill passed by the various representatives of the presidency between the legislation passed by the parliament and the state assembly, he can send it to the president for assent. That is a prerogative of the governor. Sometimes the administrative department and the state government themselves may find that there is some representation. Nonetheless, they will, so to get over this presidency, it will be sent to the president for assent. Now, 254-2 says, once the president assents to the state bill, notwithstanding the fact that there is an earlier legislation passed by the parliament, in the event of Rupad Menci, the subsequently passed state legislation, which has the assent of the president, will prevail. I think I have made myself clear. Now, suppose the subsequently passed legislation, when it prevails over the parliament, earlier passed parliament, parliamentary legislation. Suppose a parliament, after a few years comes with the new legislation, where there is Rupad Menci, then the state legislation again goes. Then, if you want to do, want it to get over that, you have to again send it to the parliament and then get it, get the assent of the president. Now, there are two legislations which you know. In the urgent matters, there will be the ordinance. The ordinance, power of passing the ordinance, that is with the governor. In urgent cases, when the assembly is not in session, law can be passed, which will have the same force as a bill passed by the legislature. So, that is under article 213. Now, suppose under article 213, the ordinance is passed, is sent to the governor for assent. And the governor feels, that there is a repugnancy between the central legislation. What will the governor do? Governor has to get prior assent of the president, prior instructions he has to obtain. He has to send the ordinance and get prior instructions or the state government has to get the prior instructions. In the case of a legislation, after passing the bill, you need to get the assent. But in the matter of ordinance, before promulgating the ordinance, the prior instructions have to come. And if the prior instructions say that no, you cannot pass the ordinance, that is the end of it. Otherwise, if you get the prior instructions of the president, the state assembly can pass the ordinance. Then this is to get over the question of repugnancy, that is under article 213 of the constitution. I am not reading the entire thing because it is not necessary, it is for you to read. See, learning is a process. Now, I know so many things what I may say may not be, when you read that you will have better insights. So everyone has to read on his own. Now, this is broadly what is the legislative procedure as to as how I witnessed as a law secretary. And as I was, in fact, slightly fortunate because I became the law secretary and I continued for another three and a half years. I was able to continue as the law secretary with the LDF government as well. Usually when the government's change does not happen that much in Kerala. The government's change law secretary also changes, need not change because we are independent people. We are under no government. We are appointed under the constitution by the recommendation of the High Court as a district of this. But you see, usually, that is what happens. Now, so far as Kerala is concerned, it is not like that. This is Ram Kumar. He was also law secretary for the LDF as well as United Democratic Government in Kerala. I don't know. No other person has been there for both governments. I was fortunate. So I was able to see the inside of inside out of this legislation being the law secretary and actively involved in legislation. And I also had the opportunity to interact with the legislatures, MLAs, who are well-versed, who were practicing lawyers and who are well-versed in the laws in the constitution and very open about talking about this, no inhibition. We lawyers will, when we argue before court, we will say, I asked the question to myself a lot, that is what we will say. I will never say, I am putting this question to you. We will not kindly look at it this way. But we will say, I am asking myself the question. But legislative assembly is a free word, where there is always a free for all. And you also find no inhibition. Don't take it otherwise. Now, this is what I wanted to say about legislative process. Now, I want to take you to the question of conflict between the state law and the central. Now, as I told you, under Article 246 of the Constitution of India, see Article 246 of the Constitution of India, we have this legislative fields. That is under the seven schedule, list one, list two, and list three. Now, let us look into other. We will go through one, recently I had an occasion to go through the repugnancy between two statutes. And I had the opportunity to go through the entire, I had the opportunity to go through six constitutional decisions and a nine judgment decision. And it is, so I'll just take you to those provisions, you know. I'll just take you to entry, entry, 54, 53 and 54 of the seven schedule, I hope some of you have the Constitution with you. That is the seventh schedule, list one contains two items, that is the regulation and development of oil fields. And the other is regulation of mines and mineral development. These two are declaratory legislation, it says that under the control of the union is declared by parliament by law to be expedient in public interest. Now, and again petroleum products and other substances declared by parliament by law to be dangerously inflatable. Regulation and development, that is regulation and development of oil fields, as well as regulation and development of mines and minerals development. Now, there are two, there are, there is a legislation on mines and minerals, I will just take you to that. Which is called the, which is called the Mines and Minerals Development Act 1957. Okay, that is Act 67, 57, which is passed by the parliament under the entry 54 of list one, which is the central list. And then we have the second list. Now, first decision is by a constitution, very strong constitution. Presided by Gajendra Ghatkar, Sarkar S. Subbarav, Vanchu and Mudolkar. Now, then the question was, there was this Orisa Mining Areas Development Fund Act. It was passed under entry 66 of list two, which is the state list. And then there is the entry 54, which is the Mines and Minerals Development Act of 19, that is Act 67 of 1957. See, so there was apparently a conflict between these two, not just not a conflict between as contemplated under the pregnancy of a concurrent list. But then there is a central legislation, that is Orisa Mining Areas Development Fund Act. And then there is the Mines and Minerals Regulation and Development Act of the parliament. Now, the conflict Supreme Court said that when there is a central legislation covering the field occupied by entry 54. A state legislation on the same matter, that is Orisa Mining Development Act of 1952 is not valid, because it is not a question of a repugnance. What it says is that the entire law, entire law is hit because there is a declaratory legislation by the parliament. And the Supreme Court said that the state legislature is denuded of its power to pass any legislation. And the Orisa Mining and Development Act will not be valid, it will be invalid by the coming into force of the Mines and Minerals Development Act 1957. You see, they were actually considering the sess with the Mines and Minerals Regulation and Development Act of 1948, which was passed prior to the coming into force of the Constitution. At that point of time, we did not have entry 54. Therefore, Supreme Court said that Adaptation Laws Act of 1950 will not hit, but nonetheless an obituary they said, after the passing of the 1957 Act, there cannot be any legislation on Mines by the state legislature. Now, this again came for consideration before another constitutional bridge, the same Orisa Mining, Areas Development Fund Act, validity and with regard to Mines and Minerals Regulation and Development Act 1987. That came under entry 54, which I have read. Now, the Supreme Court held without any unequivocally held that the legislative field is occupied by a central legislation, exclusive legislature power is with the central legislature, that is the parliament. And parliamentary enactment will supersede the state law and that virtually affects as a repeat of the state law. They also said that Section 6 of the General Laws Act in such cases is not applicable at all. Now, despite the fact that there was such a decision, you find that there was another decision where that was a Charas Murthy versus Collector of Chittur and others. That is reported in these two decisions I would say are reported in two decisions, one is reported in the first decision that is Hingur Rampur Coal Company is reported in AAR 61 Supreme Court 5459, AAR 61 Supreme Court 459. The next decision, which is made to lock that is AAR 64 Supreme Court 1284. In this, the Supreme Court categorically held that entire field of development including provision for amenities and other matters. When they are, when it is occupied by the central legislature, the state legislature is denuded of it, power to legislate. Now this Hingur Rampur Coal Company's decision was followed in the next decision. Now you find the third decision, which is HRS Murthy versus Collector of Chittur and others, which is reported in AAR 65 Supreme Court 177. There you find that there was the Madras Distribution Act of 1920, which came under entry 18 of the second list. See that is land that is to say rights in or over land. That is entry 18 of the second scheduled state list. The other is Mines and Mendels Development Act, which comes under entry 54. So the question was whether CES could be levied under the Madras Act under entry 18, despite the fact that there was a declaratory legislation under entry 54. So they also referred to entry 49, entry 49 of the second schedule, which deals with the tax which can be imposed by the state legislature on land and buildings. So entry 49 is tax on land and buildings. Now the Supreme Court, despite the fact that there was, this was also, this was actually by Chief Justice Gajendra Ghatkar, 1964 decision. He held that, the constitution held that it is possible that entry 49 and entry 18 do not, because that is for two different purposes. This is not with regard to mines and minerals, but with regard to some other, it is a tax on land. And therefore state legislatures power is not lost. Now there are, again, we find that there was a apparent conflict between three Constitutional Benji decision, two on one side and one on the other side. Again, this question was considered in Baijnath Kadia versus state of Bihar, AIR 1970 Supreme Court, 1416. Then what happened was, there was the Bihar Land Reforms Act. Bihar Land Reforms Act, the Bihar Legislature, again imposed tax and they said on land. And they said that entry 54 is not affected or the union list is not affected because they contended. The contention was that it came under entry 23, there was the entry 23, regulation of mines and mineral development subject to the provisions of list one. And then they also relied on entry 18. In Baijnath Kadia's case, the Supreme Court held that no legislation was permissible under entry 18 or any other provisions of the second schedule when they are regarding mines and minerals, because entry, the legislation under entry 54 is comprehensive. It is a declaratory legislation and therefore the power of the state legislature stands benewed. Now, you see, the thing is, we now have three constitutions, four constitutions in the decisions by five judges of the Supreme Court. One taking a different view and the three taking another view. Now, the apparent conflict was later referred to a bench of seven judges in India cement, India cement that is 1991 SCC 12, 1991 SCC 12. The correctness of Ingil Rampur, then M.A. Tullok as HRS Murthy's case and Baijnath Kadia, which I told you came up for consideration before the seven judge bench in India cement. Now, in India cement, they say that the SES imposed by the Madras legislature is unconstitutional. It cannot affect the mines because there is a declaratory legislation completely encompassing the entire field of the mines and minerals. And therefore, mines and minerals are also in a way land. So the state cannot impose tax on, the state cannot impose royalty because royalty itself is a tax. I'm sorry, royalty itself is a share of produce. And then tax is also not possible because tax also is not possible because there is a comprehensive legislation on the part and therefore they say they held that entry 23 is not entry 49 of the list to also under that the state legislature cannot pass any legislation. So far as land and buildings also they said no legislation is possible when there is a comprehensive legislation by the central legislator. In fact, what the Supreme Court in fact very categorically said that the lists are designated to define and delimit the respective areas of competence of union and state legislature. These they said neither impose any implied restriction on legislative power conferred under article 246 not prescribed any duty to exercise that legislative power in any particular manner. And then they said that when there is a conflict between this, the list one, the legislation under list one will override. So, the SS which was imposed under the Madras village Punjay at was held to be unconstitutional when there was the central legislation. So they said that. So this is how we know the seven judgment decision in the game has been doubted by another three judgments, and it has been referred to the larger bench. But you see, the larger benches not been constituted, but I don't hope the three judgment would take a different view from nine, seven judgment decision and seek the basic before the Chief Justice to refer it to the larger bench. Jindal stainless steel is another decision which is a larger decision which again has upheld the decision in India since now, this is what we have to discuss. This is broadly this is about legislative fields of legislation, as I told you, then there is the latest decision in Krishnakumar Singh's case regarding the redundancy that is by a bench of seven judges. In fact, first judge that there are separate judgments by two judges, there is one by justice Thakur and judge uncaring with them. The majority then there is the judge by just his mother local separate judge. And then the majority judgment is by the by Justice Sandhraju, as he then was. And Krishnakumar Singh's case. That is pertaining to ordinance and the pregnancy between basically, if the audience is not placed before the legislative assembly, it will be a fraud on the constitution. And then you cannot keep on. I'm not saying what is this that is what is the pregnancy again I'll take you to article 254. The Constitution of India broadly stated what it means. The article 254 of the Constitution of India just for the purpose. See this 254 applies the Constitution when the decisions which I pointed out before you are are regarding the conflict between entry, the legislation passed in entry one and the legislation passed in entry two. Now, those days in legislation that is mindset level that developing that was a complete code in itself, which encompass the entire legislative field and therefore the seven judgment decision as well as the other decisions majority decision said that when this field is completely occupied by a central legislation, the state is denuded in passing legislation in the same subject. Now conflict of article 254 arises in the matter of legislations in the concurrent list concurrent list is the third list, where the state legislature as well as the central legislator have the power to pass those. So in that, what it says is that 254 to says, where a law made by the legislature of a state with respect to one or more matters and enumerate in the concurrent list contains any provision to the provisions of earlier law made by the parliament or an existing law with respect to that matter, then the law so made by the legislature of the state shall if it has been reserved for consideration of the president and has reserved his assent prevail in that state. So, otherwise, if you don't get a sent the law passed by the parliament under article 254 one. This is what I have to broadly say about the legislative process. On a Sunday, about one hour and 15 minutes I've taken your time. Thank you for very patiently listening. If you have any questions, I'm prepared to answer them. Only one question we have received. Let's assume there is an amendment to the rules. Yeah, it's audible. Please tell me. Yeah. Amendment in the No, not in the chat. There's one question received on the WhatsApp. It says let's assume there are amendment in the rules and the procedure what you have said has not been followed. That is, it's not gone to the ministers etc. Can they just on the basis of an agenda the rules we amended service rules can they be amended. I'm just not understood. No, there is a rule. There is a service rules. There is a service rule. Yeah, all the amend the service rules. And in case there is any lacuna, then what has to be done, whether the rules are not the valid. Rulemaking power is actually left to the executive under the statute. So it ordinarily it will only go to the subjects committee. It will not be placed before the legislative assembly that is my experience rules are always you know power is under the statute rulemaking power that will be shall be as maybe prescribed when we use the word as maybe prescribed means means that the administrative department is empowered to rules and the rules can be amended. Only thing is that the rule should not be ultra virus the act. That is the only question. Okay, and the second question was if the agenda is a very cryptic one that the post have to be reduced. Still it can be valid for post of what was in the in the rules the posts are being reduced without any reasons why it is being reduced. Does the agenda have to be speaking one that why it has to be reduced or can the court interfere. No one see if a person is appointed to a public post. It is under the pleasure of the governor. So if the posts are reduced, necessarily, if the administrative department gives says that this number of persons are not required. Then post can be reduced. I don't understand really which post direction of what post. It's fine. That's fine. That was the two questions we have received. And thank you for sharing your knowledge. And those who have missed the previous webinars of not only of Mr. The others also they can stay connected with beyond the CNC and they can try to that. Thank you.