THE SECRETARY TO GOVT. OF KERALA, IRRIGATION v. JAMES VARGHESE & Ors.

3.4. A perusal of the various provisions of the State Act would clearly show that the State Act has been enacted since the State Government was aggrieved by various awards passed against it. It was therefore found expedient, in the public interest, to cancel the arbitration clause in the agreement, to revoke the authority of the arbitrators appointed thereunder and to enable the filing of appeals against the awards or decrees. Most of the awards were made “Rules of Court” prior to 1993. In many of the cases, appeals were also preferred by the State Government. As such, it is found that the legislative prescriptions and legislative directions in the State Act undoubtedly interfere with the judicial functions. It is also clear that the legislation is targeted at the awards passed which have become “Rule of Court”. The powers exercised by the courts under Section 17 of the 1940 Act are judicial powers of the State. Upon consideration of the terms of the State Act, the issues with which it deals, it is clear that the State Act interferes with the judicial functions. [Para 121] [466-G-H; 467-A-C]

3.5. What has been done by the State Act, is annulling the awards and the judgments and decrees passed by the court vide which the awards were made “Rule of Court”. As such, the rights which accrued to the parties much prior to the enactment of the State Act have been sought to be taken away by it. The State Act, which has the effect of annulling the awards which have become “Rules of Court”, is a transgression on the judicial functions of the State and therefore, violative of doctrine of “separation of powers”. As such, the State Act is liable to be declared unconstitutional on this count. [Paras 122, 125][467-C-D; 469-C] G.C. Kanungo v. State of Orissa (1995) 5 SCC 96 : [1995] 1 Suppl. SCR 510 – held per incuriam and also hit by rule of sub silentio. Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Shyam Sundar Jhunjhunwala and Others [1962] 2 SCR 339; Shankarlal Aggarwala and Others v. Shankarlal Poddar and Others (1964) 1 SCR 717; Bengal Immunity Company Limited v. State of Bihar and Others [1955] 2 SCR 603; SBP & Co. v. Patel Engineering Ltd. and A B C D E F G H 398 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 3 S.C.R.