T K KUPPUSWAMY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition coming on for hearing on Monday, the 26th and Friday, the 30th days of March, 1990 upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof the order of the High Court, dt. 21-7-198l and made herein, and the counter-affidavit filed herein and the records relating to the order is relevant to the prayer aforesaid comprised in the return of the respondents, to the writ made by the High Court, and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. O.V. Balaswami, Advocate for the petitioner, and of Mr. P. Narasimhan, Senior Central Government Standing Counsel on behalf of the 1st respondent and of Mr. Fathimanathan, Govt. Advocate on behalf of the respondents 2 and 3, the Court made the following order :-

(2.) Mr. O. V. Balaswami, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, contends that the Act is beyond the powers of the first respondent, since it is not covered by any of the entries in List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India. The entire averment with reference to the validity of the Act in the affidavit of the petitioner is as follows :-

(3.) The counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 2 and 3 with reference to the above allegations is equally brief. The counter-affidavit says that "the framing of this Act is within the legislative power of Central Government". The validity of an enactment cannot be challenged in such a light hearted manner. It may be argued that it is enough for the petitioner to say that the Act has no legislative competence and it is for the respondents to substantiate their contentions that the Parliament has got powers to enact the law is question. But the petitioner forgets that there is a residuary entry in List I which runs as follows :-