_edited.png)
In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has held that a law repealing an existing statute does not require presidential assent merely because the original Act had received it. The judgment clarifies the constitutional process for repealing laws, emphasizing that the requirement of presidential assent applies at the stage of enactment but does not automatically extend to repeal.
The case arose from a challenge questioning whether a repealing Act must follow the same approval process as the law it seeks to annul. The petitioners argued that since the original Act had been assented to by the President, any repeal should also require similar approval. However, the Supreme Court rejected this contention, reaffirming that repealing an Act follows the legislative process prescribed in the Constitution and does not automatically inherit the procedural requirements of the original legislation.
The bench observed that Article 111 of the Constitution deals with the President’s assent for Bills but does not impose a mandatory requirement for repealing statutes. Once an Act is repealed by the legislature, it ceases to exist, and there is no constitutional obligation for presidential approval unless explicitly mandated.
Legal experts view this judgment as a crucial clarification, ensuring that legislative processes remain efficient and do not impose unnecessary procedural hurdles. The ruling is expected to have far-reaching implications for future legislative actions, particularly in cases where outdated or redundant laws are repealed.
This decision underscores the autonomy of the legislature in lawmaking and repeal, reinforcing the principle that procedural formalities applicable to enactment do not always extend to repeal.
LinkedIn Link - https://www.linkedin.com/company/legal-soch-foundation/ 💼📚👩⚖
Telegram Link - https://t.me/+1-pfOBHo2a84MWRl
WhatsApp Link https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaT83EwJ3jv51opz