Petitioner: Harla Vs Respondent: The State of Rajasthan

International Journal of Trend in Scientific
Research and Development (IJTSRD)

International Open Access Journal
ISSN No: 2456 - 6470 | www.ijtsrd.com | Volume - 2 | Issue – 5
Petitioner: Harla vvs Respondent: The State off Rajasthan

Shruti Pandit
B.B.A.,
A., L.L.B (Hons), Indore Institute of Law
Indore, Madhya Pradesh, India
INTRODUCTION
Natural justice requires that before a law can become This law came into force on the 1st of November,
operative it must be promulgated and published in a 1924. It is admitted that the Jaipur Opium Act was
recognised way so all men can understand what it is. never published
ished in the Gazette either before or after
It must be broadcasted in an recognisable manner or the 1st of November, 1924. But it is contended that
at least there must be some special rules and was not necessary because it was a “regulation”
regulations or the customary channel through which already in force on that date.
such knowledge has been acquired with the exercise
of due and reasonable diligence. The only other fact of consequence is that on the 19th
of May, 1938, section 1 of the Jaipur Opium Act was
It was conceded in that case
ase that the ruler of the jaipur amended by the addition of subsection (c) which ran
has authority to make all those legislation. But after as follows:
some the time the crown has been died; now his “(c) It shall come into force on the 1st of September,
successor should be the next crown but the issue was 1924.”
that he was minor. So during his minority
administrative appointed thehe council of Ministers to After the terms of fourteen
urteen years i.e. in 1938 that Acts
make laws for the territory. After sometime the one section has been published what was about 14
council of minister had passed an act that is Opium years that the particular act comes into force in 1st
Act,1923 but that particular law was not been November 1924 then why only one section has been
published or promulgated towards public. Thus it was promulgated 14 years later.
against the natural justice of the public. They passed
an resolution purporting the law called The Opium Held, that the mere passing of the Resolution
Reso of the
Act of 1923. But it was neither promulgated or Council without further publication or promulgation
published in any Gazzete, nor it is known to the of the law was not sufficient to make the law
public. operative and the Jaipur Opium Act was not
therefore a valid law. Held further, that the said Act
About the same time (that is to say, in the year 1923) was not saved by s. 3 (b) of the Jaipur Laws Act,
the same Council enactedted the Jaipur Laws Act, 1923. 1923, as it was not a valid law in force on the 1st
Section 3(b) of this Act provided as follows:
follows:- November, 1924, and the mere addition of a clause
“3. Subject to the prerogative of the Ruler the law to in1938 that it shall come into force in 1924 was of e
be administered by the Court of Jaipur State shall be will state the facts chronologically.
as follows:
(b) All the regulations now in force within the said It is conceded that the Rulers of Jaipur had full
territories,
itories, and the enactments and regulations that powers of government including those of legislation.
may hereafter be passed from time to time by the On the 7th of September, 1922, the late Maharaja died
State and published in the Official Gazette.” and at the time of his death his successor, the present
Maharaja, was a minor. Accordingly,-the
Accordingly, Crown
Representative appointed a Council of Ministers to
@ IJTSRD | Available Online @ www.ijtsrd.com | Volume – 2 | Issue – 5 | Jul-Aug

Aug 2018 Page: 1235
International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development (IJTSRD) ISSN: 2456-6470
look after the government and administration of the published; therefore publication of only one section
State during the Maharaja's minority- would not validate it if it was not already valid. We
need not consider whether a law could be made
FACTS retroactive so as to take effect from 1924 by
On the 11th of December, 1923, this Council passed a publication in 1938, though that point was argued.
Resolution which purported to enact the Jaipur Opium That throws us back to the position in 1923 and raises
Act, and the only question is whether the mere the question whether a law could be brought into
passing ofthe Resolution without promulgation or operation by a mere resolution of the Jaipur Council.
publication in the Gazzete, or other means to make the We do not know what laws were operative in Jaipur
Act known to the public, was sufficient to make it regarding the coming into force of an enactment in
law. We are of opinion that it was not. But before that State. We were not shown any, nor was our
giving our reasons for so holding, we will refer to attention drawn to any custom which could be said to
some further facts. govern the matter. In the absence of any special law
or custom, we are of opinion that it would be against
About the same time (that is to say, in the year 1923 the principles of natural justice to permit the subjects
we have not been given the exact date) the same of a State to be punished or penalised by laws of
Council enacted the Jaipur Laws Act, 1923. Section which they had no knowledge and of which they
3(b) of this Act provided as follows:-- could not even with the exercise of reasonable
"3. Subject to the prerogative of the Ruler the law to diligence have acquired any knowledge. Natural
be administered by the Court of Jaipur State shall be justice requires that beforea law can become operative
as follows: it must be promulgated or published. It must be
(b)All the regulations now in force within the said broadcast in some recognisable way so that all men
territories, and the enactments and regulations that may know what it is; or, at the very least, there must
may hereafter be passed from time to time by the be some special rule or regulation or customary
State and published in the Official Gazette." channel by or through which such knowledge can be
acquired with the exercise of due and reasonable
This law came into force on the 1st of November, diligence. The thought that a decision reached in the
1924. Itis admitted that the Jaipur Opium Act was secret recesses of a chamber to which the public have
never published in the Gazette either before or after no access and to which even their accredited
the 1st of November, 1924. But it is contended that representatives have no access and of which they can
was not necessary because it was a "regulation" normally know nothing, can nevertheless affect their
already in force on that date. lives, liberty and property by the mere passing of a
Resolution without anything more is abhorrent to
The only other fact of consequence is that on the 19th civilised man. It shocks his conscience. In the absence
of May, 1938, section 1 of the Jaipur Opium Act was therefore of any law, rule, regulation or custom, we
amended by the addition of sub-section (c) which ran hold that a law cannot come into being in this way.
as follows: "(c) It shall come into force from the 1st of Promulgation or publication of some reasonable sort
September, 1924."The offence for which the appellant is essential.
was convicted took place on the 8th of October, 1948.
Dealing first with the last of these Acts, namely the JUDGEMENT:
one of the 19th of May, 1938, we can put that on one CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION:
side at once because, unless the Opium Act was valid Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 1951. Appeal from the
when made, the mere addition of a clause fourteen Judgment and Orderdated18th August, '1950, of the
years later stating that it shall come into force at a High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur
date fourteen years earlier would be useless. In the (Nawal Kishore C.J. and Dave J.)in Criminal
year 1938 there was a law which required all Reference No. 229 of Sambat 2005.
enactments after the 1st of November, 1924, to be H. J. Umrigar for the appellant.
published in the Gazette. Therefore, if the Opium Act G. C. Mathur for the respondent.
was not a valid Act at that date, it could not be 1951. September 24. The Judgment of the Courtwas
validated by the publication of only one section of it delivered by Bose J.—
in the Gazette fourteen years later. The Jaipur Laws The appellant was convicted under section 7 of the
Act of 1923 required the whole of the enactment to be Jaipur Opium Act and fined Rs. 50. The case as such
@ IJTSRD | Available Online @ www.ijtsrd.com | Volume – 2 | Issue – 5 | Jul-Aug 2018 Page: 1236
is trivialbut the High Court of Rajasthan in Jaipur Issue
granted special leave to appeal as an important Whether the mere passing of the Resolution without
point touching the vires of the Act arises. promulgation or publication in the Gazette or other
means to make the Act known to the public, was
Nor, is the principle peculiar to England. It was sufficient to make it law?
applied to France by the Code Napoleon, the first
Article of which states that the laws are executor "by Authorised Observation of the Case
virtue ofthe promulgation thereof" and that they shall Section 7 of the Act provides sentence of
come into effect "from the moment promulgation can imprisonment and fine to a person who commits
have been known." So also it has been applied in breach of the Orders. In the said Orders, no provision
India, for instance, matters arising under Rule 119 of has been made as to how the prices fixed by the
the Defence of India Rules. See, for example, Crown manufacturers will be published by them. In case
v. ManghumalTekuml, Shakoor v. King Emperor and penal action had been provided for contravention of
Babulal v. King Emperor. It is true none of these the clauses relating to the price control, it was also
cases is analogous to the one before us but they are necessary that a provision should have been made to
only particular applications of a deeper rule which is the effect that the prices fixed by the manufacturers
rounded on natural justice. would be published in the official gazette or in any
other way so that every dealer could know about
The Council of Ministers which passed the Jaipur them. This has, however, not been done in the present
Opium Act was not a sovereign body nor did it case. Unless a person with reasonable diligence can
function of its own right. It was brought into being by acquire knowledge of law, he cannot be convicted for
the Crown Representative, and the Jaipur Gazette its breach. In this connection reference may be made
Notification dated the 11th August,1923, defined and to the observations of the Supreme Court in Harla v.
limited its powers. We are entitled therefore to import The State of Rajasthan, AIR 1951 SC 467, wherein
into this matter consideration of the principles and Bose, J., speaking for the Court, observed as follows.
notions of natural justice which underlie the British
Constitution, for it is inconceivable that a Observation:
representative of His Britannic Majesty could have My observation as per this case when any law or
contemplated the creation of a body which could legislation or any Act is made it should necessary to
wield powers so abhorrent to the fundamental be promulgated and published in an recognised way.
principles of natural justice which all freedom loving As per my observation in the case of Harla Vs State of
peoples share. We hold that, in the absence of some Rajasthan when any law or legislation and act is made
specific law or custom to the contrary, a mere it is necessary that the particular should be
resolution of a Council of Ministers in the aipur promulgated and published in any of the Gazzete so
State without further publication or promulgation that the public must be aware about what actually the
would not be sufficient to make a law operative. law is. It must be necessary to be broadcasted in a
recognisable manner.
It is necessary to consider another point. It was urged
that section 3(b) of the Jaipur Laws Act of 1923 saved In these case the law made was by the delegated
all regulations then in force from the necessity of authority in which they made the law that is
publication in the Gazette. That may be so, but the applicable to the whole territory i.e. Jaipur. The Act is
Act only saved laws which were valid at the time and popularly known as an Opium Act, 1923 and it was
not resolutions which had never acquired the force of come into force on 1st September 1924 but it was
law. The appeal succeeds. The conviction and unknown by the public. If the public was unaware
sentence are set aside. The fine, if paid, will be about the law then how does they were restricted to
refunded. The court held that, in the absence of some follow that particular act or law. It must be necessary
specific law or custom to the contrary, a mere that the law or act should be made for those must be
resolution of a Council of Ministers in the Jaipur State known to those.
without further publication or promulgation was not
sufficient to make law operative. In these case of delegated authority crown delegated
its authority to the council of minister because the
crown was unable to make the legislation for the
territory because of his minority. So, the council of
minister are appointed to handle the territory and
given authority to make legislation for the welfare of
that territory as well as the public of that territory.
And the public was unaware of any law of the Opium

Act upto the huge gap of fourteen years i.e. in 1938.
The one section that is the section 3 of the act should
be known to the public but it was observed that in the
whole case that only one section is published in the
gazzate and should known to the public of this whole
act, and the whole act was of no use and it was known
fourteen years later. What was about that fourteen
years. Natural justice must be made and the particular
law has been published and promulgated in any
recognised manner. The question of natural justice
must be arises in the mind that the particular law is
valid or not? To know that particular law is valid or
not it must be necessary that it must be known to all
the public of the region, otherwise if no one knows it
who does follow it

Petitioner: Harla Vs Respondent: The State of Rajasthan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Petitioner: Harla Vs Respondent: The State of Rajasthan

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Petitioner: Harla Vs Respondent: The State of Rajasthan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal of Trend in Scientific

Research and Development (IJTSRD)

Petitioner: Harla vvs Respondent: The State off Rajasthan

@ IJTSRD | Available Online @ www.ijtsrd.com | Volume – 2 | Issue – 5 | Jul-Aug

And the public was unaware of any law of the Opium

You might also like