On May 16, 2025, the Jharkhand High Court delivered a significant judgment, striking down Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908, as introduced by the Bihar government through the Bihar Amendment Act of 1991 and subsequently adopted by the Jharkhand government. This provision empowered the state government to declare, via a notification, that the registration of any document or class of documents was against public policy, thereby rendering such documents ineligible for registration. The court's decision has far-reaching implications for property rights, the scope of executive authority, and the role of the judiciary in interpreting constitutional provisions.
Background and Legislative History
The genesis of Section 22-A lies in the Bihar Amendment Act of 1991, which aimed to curb fraudulent land transactions and unauthorized registrations, particularly concerning government, religious, and charitable properties. The provision granted the state government the authority to issue notifications declaring certain documents or classes of documents as being against public policy, thereby prohibiting their registration. This amendment was later adopted by the newly formed state of Jharkhand.
The legislative intent behind this provision was to prevent illegal land dealings and protect public properties from encroachment. However, the broad and undefined scope of "public policy" raised constitutional concerns, particularly regarding the delegation of judicial functions to the executive.
Judicial Scrutiny and Constitutional Challenge
The constitutional validity of Section 22-A was challenged on the grounds that it conferred excessive and undefined powers upon the executive, thereby violating the principles of separation of powers and judicial review enshrined in the Constitution of India. The petitioners contended that the provision allowed the state government to arbitrarily declare documents as against public policy without any judicial oversight or clear guidelines.
The Jharkhand High Court, in its deliberations, referred to the Supreme Court's decision in State of Rajasthan vs. Basant Nahata (2005), where a similar amendment by the Rajasthan government was struck down. The apex court had observed that the concept of "public policy" is inherently vague and cannot be precisely defined at any given time. It held that the power to interpret and apply "public policy" lies within the exclusive domain of the judiciary, not the executive. The court further emphasized that delegating such judicial functions to the executive without clear legislative guidelines is constitutionally impermissible.
Court's Analysis and Findings
The division bench of Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Rajesh Shankar critically examined the provisions of Section 22-A in light of constitutional principles. The court noted that the power to declare documents as against public policy was vested solely in the state government, without any procedural safeguards or judicial review mechanisms. This, according to the court, amounted to an unconstitutional delegation of judicial authority to the executive.
The court also highlighted the absence of clear criteria or guidelines to determine what constitutes "public policy," rendering the provision arbitrary and prone to misuse. Such ambiguity, the court observed, could lead to inconsistent applications and potential violations of fundamental rights, particularly the right to property under Article 300A of the Constitution.
Implications of the Judgment
The judgment has several significant implications:
-
Reaffirmation of Judicial Oversight: The court's decision reinforces the principle that matters involving the interpretation of "public policy" fall within the judicial domain. It underscores the necessity for legislative clarity and judicial scrutiny in matters affecting fundamental rights.
-
Protection of Property Rights: By striking down Section 22-A, the court has safeguarded individuals' rights to register documents related to their property transactions, provided they comply with existing legal requirements. This ensures that property rights are not arbitrarily infringed upon by executive actions.
-
Limitation on Executive Power: The ruling curtails the executive's ability to unilaterally declare documents as against public policy, thereby preventing potential abuse of power and ensuring that such decisions are subject to judicial review.
-
Precedential Value: The judgment sets a precedent for similar provisions in other states, emphasizing the need for legislative clarity and judicial oversight in matters affecting public policy and individual rights.
Conclusion
The Jharkhand High Court's decision to strike down Section 22-A of the Registration Act is a landmark judgment that upholds constitutional principles and reinforces the judiciary's role in interpreting and safeguarding fundamental rights. By limiting the scope of executive authority in matters of public policy, the court has ensured that property rights remain protected from arbitrary state actions. This judgment serves as a critical reminder of the importance of clear legislative frameworks and the necessity for judicial oversight in maintaining the rule of law.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.