G. MOHAN RAO & Ors. v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU & Ors.

3.5 For, the High Court judgment called for re-enactment for the proper fulfilment of Article 254(2). While enacting the 2019 Act, the State legislature neither individually placed the 1997 Act and 2001 Act in the form of fresh bills before the House, nor introduced amending Acts for the said three enactments in order to incorporate the provisions of compensation, resettlement and rehabilitation. Instead, it framed one bill that sought to achieve four purposes – first, amend the State enactments to provide for different provisions of compensation to bring them in line with the law made by the Parliament; second, add fresh provisions relating to resettlement, rehabilitation and infrastructure amenities at par with the 2013 Act; third, revive the enactments declared to be repugnant and void by the High Court and validate them after passing this bill in the assembly and placing it before the President; and fourth, restore the validity of all past acquisitions under the State legislations, quashed by the High Court by making the Act operative from a retrospective date. [Para 40][316-F-H; 317-A-B]

3.6 The enactment or re-enactment involves introducing a bill in the legislature, readings of the bill as mandated in the assembly rules of conduct, passing thereof by the legislature, placing it before the Governor or the President (if necessary). Such a bill could either delineate all the existing and fresh provisions from scratch or could incorporate those provisions by way of reference. The latter would fall in the category of referential legislation, as done in the instant case. The submission that such referential legislation is impermissible and re-enactment would mean introducing fresh bills containing the same provisions of 1997 Act and 2001 Act, is tenuous. No material difference would result in following either of the two methods. The legislature has made no attempt to hide the provisions as the 2019 Act is divided into three parts and each part is specifically dedicated to concerned State enactment. [Para 41][317-C-E]

3.7 To wit, the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the 2019 Act depicts the background in which it was thought appropriate to resort to such legislative tool, for the revival of the concerned State Acts declared to be repugnant by the High A B C D E F G H 288 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 6 S.C.R. Court including to amend the same and for validating the actions already taken thereunder. The legislative intent behind the 2019 Act and more particularly, the assent accorded thereto by the Governor and the President of India for overcoming repugnancy with the Act made by the Parliament, was to revive the operation of the State enactments declared as null and void being unconstitutional and repugnant to the Act made by the Parliament and to amend the same, as well as, validate the actions already taken by the State authorities. The overall scheme is well laid-out and is not cryptic in any manner so as to play a fraud upon the mandate of the Constitution. More importantly, the concerned constitutional bodies i.e., legislative assembly, Governor and President have understood the substance of what is placed before them. The concern is with the substance of the legislation, and not its form. [Para 42, 43][317-E-F; 322-F-G; 323-B]

3.8 Referential legislation is a recognized form of legislation and the Constitution does not attach unconstitutionality to a legislation for being framed in a certain manner until and unless it violates any provision of the Constitution. [Para 44][323-C]

3.9 Plenary power of legislature is not limited to the substance of legislation in context of the Seventh Schedule, but also extends to the determination of the form of legislation. To say that a particular form of legislative activity is not permissible would require a strong basis in the Constitution, which has not been pointed out by the petitioners. The Constitution envisages a judicial review of the existence of legislative competence and use of such competence to enact something that does not violate Part-III or other provisions of the Constitution. It does not envisage a review of the cosmetic characteristics of a legislation as long as the substance of such legislation has its roots in the Constitution. [Para 45][324-F-G; 325-A]