Legislature Cannot Directly Overrule A Judgment ; But Can Retrospectively Remove Its Foundation To Make It Ineffective : Supreme Court

While upholding the validity of the Assam Community Professional (Registration and Competency) Act, 2015, the Supreme Court examined the scope of powers of legislature to overrule a judgment.

The bench of Justices B R Gavai and B V Nagarathna made the following observations in the judgment:

(1) The Legislature cannot directly overrule a judicial decision. But when a competent Legislature retrospectively removes the substratum or foundation of a judgment to make the decision ineffective, the said exercise is a valid legislative exercise provided it does not transgress on any other constitutional limitation. Such legislative device which removes the vice in previous legislation which has been declared unconstitutional is not considered an encroachment on judicial power but an instance of abrogation.

(2) The power of the sovereign legislature to legislate within its field, both prospectively and retrospectively cannot be questioned. It would be permissible for the legislature to remove a defect in earlier legislation pointed out by a constitutional court in exercise of its powers by way of judicial review. This defect can be removed both retrospectively and prospectively by a legislative process and the previous actions can also be validated.

(3) But where there is a mere validation without the defect being legislatively removed, the legislative action will amount to overruling the judgment by a legislative fiat which is invalid.

Before the Apex Court, the challenge was made against vires of the Assam Community Professional (Registration and Competency) Act, 2015 which was enacted by the State of Assam with a view to remove the basis of the Gauhati High Court judgment which had declared Assam Rural Health Regulatory Authority Act, 2004 unconstitutional. The 2015 Act attempted to restore the position of the diploma holders in medicine and to give them continuity in service.

Dismissing the petitions, the court held that the Act of 2015 is not hit by Entry 66 of List I of the Constitution and is within the legislative competence of the State 139 Legislature under the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution.

"Consequently, the subsequent legislation, namely, the Assam Act of 2015 i.e., the Assam Community Professionals (Registration and Competency) Act, 2015, enacted pursuant to the judgment of the Gauhati High Court, is a valid piece of Legislation as it has removed the basis of the impugned judgment passed by the Gauhati High Court. The 2015 Act is also not in conflict with the IMC, Act, 1956. This is because the Central Act namely, IMC, Act, 1956 does not deal with Community Health Professionals who would practise as allopathic practitioners in the manner as they were permitted to practise under the Assam Act, in rural areas of the State of Assam. Hence, by a separate legislation the Community Health Professionals have been permitted to practise as such professionals. The said legislation of 2015 is not in conflict with IMC, Act, 1956 and the rules and regulations made thereunder. Hence, the Act of 2015 is not hit by Entry 66 of List I of the Constitution and is within the legislative competence of the State 139 Legislature under the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution", the bench observed.

The court clarified that the constitutionality of the Assam Act of 2015 is limited to holding it non-repugnant with the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. However, this Court is not rendering any finding with regard to any potential conflict of the provisions of the Assam Act of 2015 with the National Medical Commission Act, 2019, it said.

Case details

Baharul Islam vs Indian Medical Association | 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 57

Click here to Read/Download Judgment