Validating Act & Rule Of Law: Supreme Court 2016 in Goa Foundation vs State ofGoa Says Legislature Can Remove Basis Of Judgment. The Supreme Court in GoaFoundation & Anr vs State Of Goa & Anr dealt with core constitutional question: Canlegislature nullify a Supreme Court judgment by amending law retrospectively? TheCourt on 29.03.2016 answered yes, if it removes "basis" of judgment. The Court upheldGoa Amendment Act 2009 which deleted construction ban in Sec 41 LA agreement forFomento Resorts. The Court held no violation of Article 254 or Rule of Law. This blogexplains Goa Foundation on validating legislation, repugnancy, and limits of judicialreview.
Facts: Agreement Barred Construction; Amendment Deleted The Bar. Original Sec41 agreement had Clause 4(viii): "never construct any building or structures in theacquired land". SC 20.01.2009 relied on this to order demolition of hotel extension.Postjudgment, Goa enacted Amendment Act 2009. Sec 41(8) deemed Clause 4(viii) deletedfrom 15.10.1964. Sec 41(6) validated all past constructions with approvals.PetitionerNGO Goa Foundation challenged it as colorable legislation to benefit one company andas repugnant to Central Act.The Supreme Court in Goa Foundation para 14-15:Questioned timing but found Cabinet decision covered multiple companies, not justFomento.
Basis Of Judgment Doctrine: How Validating Acts Work. The Supreme Court in GoaFoundation para 24: Relied on Bhaktwar Trust. Test for validating Act: Legislature hascompetence Defect found by court is removed Consistent with Part IIIThe SupremeCourt in Goa Foundation para 26: "A decision of a court of law has a binding effectunless the very basis upon which it is given is so altered that the said decision wouldnot have been given in the changed circumstances."The Supreme Court in GoaFoundation para 25: "If Clause 4(viii) had not existed at all, the judgment of the Courtdated 20th January, 2009 would not have been forthcoming". Therefore deletion isvalid.In our practice, this is textbook validating legislation. For lawyers, check ifamendment targets "basis" or just "result".
Article 254 & Repugnancy: Why No Conflict With Central Act. Argument: Sec 42makes Sec 41 agreement part of Central Act. State cannot amend it.The Supreme Courtin Goa Foundation para 28: Applied Karunanidhi test. Repugnancy requires "impossibleto obey the one without disobeying the other". Here no conflict. Central Act silent onmodification. State adds power.The Supreme Court in Goa Foundation para 28:Amendment actually harmonizes agreement with Sec 40(1)(aa) purpose - tourism.Construction is consistent with acquisition purpose.The Supreme Court in GoaFoundation para 29: Did not decide if Sec 42 agreement is "Law" for Article 254 as notnecessary.
Key Points: Rule Of Law & Judicial Review. Petitioner argued this violates Rule ofLaw by nullifying judgment.The Supreme Court in Goa Foundation para 31: Held Sec41(6)-(9) are "incidental and consequential provisions to an Amendment Act validatingactions that had earlier received judicial disapproval". Not interference with judicialpower.The Supreme Court in Goa Foundation para 25: Legislature has power to legislateretrospectively in Concurrent List Entry 42.A common mistake is thinking courts canstrike down validating Acts easily. Goa Foundation shows high threshold.
Conclusion
Goa Foundation vs State Of Goa establishes that validating act supreme court 2016goa foundation jurisprudence permits retrospective cure of defects. Supreme Court29.03.2016 upheld Goa Act 7 of 2009. Court drew line: legislature cannot overrulejudgment, but can change law to make judgment inapplicable. As the law stands,ecology clauses in agreements must still be obeyed. For States, this is authority toamend LA Act. For environmentalists, fight must shift to CRZ, EIA compliance. TheSupreme Court’s ruling in Goa Foundation is foundational for legislative-judicial balance.
