GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH & Ors. v. SMT. P. LAXMI DEVI

GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS. v. SMT. P. LAXMI DEVI 335 law about which there can be no manner of doubt about A its unconstitutionality. [Paras 54 and 55l [360-A, 8, C] M.H. Quareshi vs. State of Bihar AIR 1958 SC 731 - relied on.

2.4 A Court can declare a statute to be B unconstitutional not merely because it is possible to hold this view, but only when that is the only possible view not open to rational question. In other words, the Court can declare a statute to be unconstitutional only when there can be no manner of doubt that it is flagrantly c unconstitutional, and there is no way of avoiding such decision. The philosophy behind this view is that there is broad separation of powers under the Constitution, and the three organs of the State -the legislature, the executive and the judiciary, must respect each other and must not D ordinarily encroach into each other's domain. Also the judiciary must realize that the legislature is a democratically elected body which expresses the will of the people, and in a democracy this will is not to be lightly frustrated or obstructed. [Para 41] [353-F, G, H; 354-A] E 'Felix Frankfurter Reminisces' by H. Phillip 299-300, 1960 - referred to.

2.5 There is one and only one ground for declaring an Act of the legislature (or a provision in the Act) to be invalid, and that is if it clearly violates some provision of F the Constitution in so evident a manner as to leave no manner of doubt. This violation can, of course, be in different ways, e.g. if a State legislature makes a law which only the Parliament can make under List 1 to the Seventh Schedule, in which case it will violate Article 246 (1) of the G Constitution, or the law violates some specific provision · of the Constitution (other than the directive principles) . But before declaring the statute to be unconstitutional, the Court must be absolutely sure that there can be no manner of doubt that it violates a provision of the H f ' >- . ,, .. 336 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 3 S.C.R. .... the other making A Constitution. If two views are possible, one making the statute constitutional and unconstitutional, the former view must always be preferred. Also, the Court must make every effort to uphold the constitutional validity of a statute, even if that B requires giving a strained construction or narrowing down its scope. Also, if it is necessary to uphold the constitutionality of a statute to construe its general words narrowly or widely, the Court should do so. [Paras 44 and 64] [354-E, F, G, H; 355-A; 365-D, E] C 0