A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The case of Sardar Inder Singh v. The State of Rajasthan (1957) SCR 605 involved a constitutional challenge to the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance, 1949 and its subsequent extensions through notifications and amendments. Petitioners challenged the validity of the ordinance and subsequent legislative acts on multiple constitutional grounds including excessive delegation, infringement of Articles 14 and 19(1)(f) of the Constitution, and the purported ultra vires actions of the Rajpramukh after the establishment of the legislative assembly in 1952. The Supreme Court upheld the legislation, declaring that the power conferred on the Rajpramukh to extend the ordinance’s validity was a valid form of conditional legislation and did not constitute unconstitutional delegation. The Court also dismissed challenges under Articles 14 and 19(1)(f), stating that the legislation served a legitimate public purpose — namely, tenant protection — and was reasonable and justifiable. By anchoring the ordinance within the framework of emergency, policy-based temporary tenancy regulation, the Court relied on domestic and international jurisprudence to dismiss the petitions. The judgment remains a critical milestone in understanding the limits and permissibility of delegated legislation and tenant protection frameworks in Indian constitutional law.

Keywords: Conditional Legislation, Delegated Powers, Tenant Protection, Article 14, Article 19(1)(f), Rajasthan Ordinance 1949, Rajpramukh’s Legislative Authority.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgement Cause Title: Sardar Inder Singh v. The State of Rajasthan

ii) Case Number: Writ Petitions Nos. 50, 145, 149, 150, 188, 205, 243, 261, 266, and 362 of 1955 and 1956

iii) Judgement Date: 8 February 1957

iv) Court: Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum: S. R. Das C.J., Venkatarama Ayyar J., B. P. Sinha J., S. K. Das J., Gajendragadkar J.

vi) Author: Justice Venkatarama Ayyar

vii) Citation: (1957) SCR 605

viii) Legal Provisions Involved:

• Article 32, Article 14, Article 19(1)(f), and Article 385 of the Constitution of India

• Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance, 1949

• Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Amendment Act, 1954

• Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955

ix) Judgments overruled by the Case (if any): Jatindra Nath Gupta v. The Province of Bihar [1949 F.C.R. 595], partially dissented from

x) Case is Related to which Law Subjects: Constitutional Law, Delegated Legislation, Property Law, Tenancy Law, Administrative Law

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The constitutional framework post-1947 allowed princely states like Rajasthan to integrate through covenants. Under such arrangements, the Rajpramukh held temporary legislative authority until a legislative assembly was formed. The Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance, 1949, was one such promulgation intended to safeguard tenant farmers from arbitrary eviction. When Rajasthan’s Legislative Assembly was constituted on 29 March 1952, doubts arose about the continuing validity of the ordinance and subsequent amendments issued by the Rajpramukh thereafter.

The case challenged the ordinance’s legality, questioning whether the Rajpramukh could extend legislation post-legislative assembly formation and whether such extensions violated the Constitution. Petitioners, landowners, brought these issues under Article 32, alleging violations of fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 19(1)(f). Their arguments centered around the doctrine of excessive delegation, the lapse of authority under Article 385, and the alleged discriminatory and unreasonable nature of the law.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance, 1949 came into force on 21 June 1949. It stated it would remain valid for two years unless extended by the Rajpramukh through notification. This ordinance was extended twice—once on 14 June 1951 and again on 20 June 1953. After questions arose about the legitimacy of these extensions post-1952, Ordinance No. III of 1954 retrospectively fixed the duration at five years. Subsequently, the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Amendment Act, 1954, re-enacted the provision to extend the ordinance’s life to seven years. The Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, later replaced this framework. The petitioners—landowners affected by these regulations—challenged the ordinance, extensions, and amendment acts.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i) Whether Section 3 of the 1949 Ordinance constituted unconstitutional delegation of legislative power.

ii) Whether the Rajpramukh could validly issue the notification dated 20 June 1953 after legislative authority under Article 385 had ceased.

iii) Whether the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Amendment Act, 1954, was invalid as an amendment to a lapsed law.

iv) Whether Sections 7(1) and 15 of the Ordinance violated Article 14 of the Constitution.

v) Whether the Ordinance violated Article 19(1)(f) by imposing unreasonable restrictions on property rights.

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The counsels for Petitioner / Appellant submitted that Section 3 of the Ordinance improperly delegated legislative power to the Rajpramukh. They relied on Jatindra Nath Gupta v. The Province of Bihar (1949) F.C.R. 595 where a similar power to extend an act was held unconstitutional. They argued that determining the duration of a law was a purely legislative function and could not be delegated.

ii) They contended that the notification dated 20 June 1953 was ultra vires since, post-March 1952, legislative powers had shifted to the elected Legislative Assembly, rendering the Rajpramukh functus officio under Article 385.

iii) They claimed the 1954 Amendment Act could not revive a dead ordinance and amounted to legislating on a void subject, thus violating the principle of legal continuity.

iv) They alleged violation of Article 14, arguing that Section 15 granted arbitrary powers to exempt certain tenants or landlords, leading to discriminatory application.

v) They further argued that Section 4 infringed upon the right to property under Article 19(1)(f) by coercing landlords to continue tenancies even if they wished to personally cultivate their land.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The counsels for Respondent submitted that the power to extend the ordinance was a form of conditional legislation, not unconstitutional delegation. They relied on The Queen v. Burah (1878) 5 I.A. 178 and In re Delhi Laws Act, 1912 (1951) SCR 747 to argue that the legislature had only left implementation to the executive upon satisfaction of certain conditions.

ii) The notification of June 1953, they argued, was an administrative act implementing previously valid law and not a fresh piece of legislation, hence not subject to Article 385.

iii) The 1954 Amendment merely clarified the intended continuity of the ordinance and did not constitute reviving dead law.

iv) The preamble to the ordinance provided adequate legislative policy, which justified exemptions under Section 15, thus rebutting the Article 14 claim.

v) The ordinance promoted agrarian reform, in public interest. Thus, any infringement under Article 19(1)(f) was reasonable and saved by Article 19(5).

H) JUDGEMENT

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

i) The Court held that Section 3 was a case of conditional legislation, not unconstitutional delegation. The legislature had enacted the law in full and merely empowered the Rajpramukh to act if conditions persisted. The decision in Queen v. Burah was binding and applicable.

ii) The Court stated that the notification dated 20 June 1953 was not a fresh legislative act but execution of authority already granted. Thus, the cessation of legislative power under Article 385 did not affect its validity.

iii) The 1954 Amendment Act did not revive a dead ordinance because the ordinance had never lapsed. Its continuity was preserved either through valid notification or retroactive legislation.

iv) On Article 14, the Court held that Section 15 was not arbitrary since the ordinance’s preamble outlined policy guidance for exemptions. Following Harishankar Bagla v. The State of Madhya Pradesh (1955) 1 SCR 380, legislative guidance was deemed adequate.

v) On Article 19(1)(f), the Court held that tenancy protections were reasonable restrictions. Following Block v. Hirsh [256 U.S. 135 (1920)], they held such laws do not violate property rights if they serve legitimate state interest.

b. OBITER DICTA

i) The Court noted that the temporary and emergency nature of the legislation made a stronger case for tolerating delegated authority and property restrictions.

ii) The Court reserved broader discussions on permissible limits of delegation, noting the ongoing conflict in views post-Delhi Laws Act reference.

c. GUIDELINES 

• Conditional legislation is valid if the legislature formulates the core law and delegates only the implementation based on pre-identified conditions.

• Delegation to extend time or territorial operation does not equate to delegation of legislative policy or essence.

• Pre-legislative policy articulation in preamble can satisfy Article 14 challenges to delegated discretion.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

This judgment significantly contributed to India’s jurisprudence on delegated and conditional legislation, particularly within transitional legislative frameworks in post-independence India. By upholding tenant rights and recognizing the exigencies of executive-led legislation in newly unified states, the judgment fortified the principle that legislative intent and policy expression, even if subtle, suffices to validate executive discretion. It marked a partial departure from the rigid precedent in Jatindra Nath Gupta, promoting a more pragmatic interpretation in light of public welfare and democratic transition. The decision remains relevant to contemporary debates on administrative overreach and delegated authority.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

i) The Queen v. Burah, (1878) 5 I.A. 178
ii) In re The Delhi Laws Act, 1912, (1951) SCR 747
iii) Jatindra Nath Gupta v. The Province of Bihar, (1949) F.C.R. 595
iv) Harishankar Bagla v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, (1955) 1 SCR 380
v) Block v. Hirsh, (1920) 256 U.S. 135; 65 L. Ed. 865
vi) Dr. N. B. Khare v. The State of Delhi, (1950) SCR 519

b. Important Statutes Referred

i) Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance, 1949
ii) Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Amendment Act, 1954
iii) Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955
iv) Constitution of India, Articles 14, 19(1)(f), 32, 385