Ram Temple ordinance could be hindered by these three SC verdicts
New Delhi, Nov 12: With the Government exploring the possibility of taking an ordinance route to construct the Ram temple in Ayodhya, it would be interesting to find out what the legal implications of such a move would be.
While the government is well within its rights to take the ordinance route, even if the matter is pending before the Supreme Court, it could still come under legal challenge. In the event of an ordinance being passed, any person wishing to challenge the same would cite these Supreme Court judgments, which have dealt with this aspect.
In the S R Bhagwat vs State of Mysore case, the court adjudicated a case pertaining to the state legislature seeking to take away certain government financial benefits from the petitioners, pursuant an order of the High Court.
The Supreme Court said that the impugned provision of the act is clearly ultra vires the powers of the state legislature as it encroaches upon the judicial field and tries to over-rule the judicial decision between the two parties.
The Cauvery Waters case:
A Presidential reference made in 1991 by the then President of India, R Venkatraman also came under challenge before the Supreme Court. This was a matter concerning the Cauvery Waters case.
The Supreme Court held," the principle which emerges from these authorities is that the legislature can change the basis on which a decision is given by the court and thus change the law in general which will affect a class of persons and events at large. It cannot, however set aside an individual decision interparties and affect their rights and liabilities alone."
In another verdict delivered in 1995, the SC had touched upon a similar issue. It said, " it is now well settled by a catena of decisions of this court that a binding judicial pronouncement between parties cannot be made ineffective with the aid of any legislative power by enacting a provision which in substance overrules such judgment and is not in the realm of a legislative enactment which displaces the basis of foundation of the judgment and uniformly applies to a class of persons with the entire subject sought to be covered by such an enactment having retrospective effect."