Guj properties law: Presumption of constitutionality attached to enactment

The Supreme Court said the main petition was pending before the high court for the last three years and the petitioners could request the high court's chief justice for an early hearing

There is a presumption of constitutionality attached to every enactment, the Supreme Court on Monday said and dismissed a plea against a Gujarat High Court order refusing to suspend certain provisions of a 1991 state law over properties in disturbed areas.

While hearing the challenge, Justices Dipankar Datta and Prashant Kumar Mishra, asked, "How can, by an interim order, certain provisions be suspended?"  "There is a presumption of constitutionality attached to every enactment," it observed.

The high court on October 28 rejected an application seeking suspension of certain provisions of the Gujarat Prohibition of Transfer of Immovable Property and Provisions for Protection of Tenants from Eviction from Premises in the Disturbed Areas Act, 1991.

The law prohibits the transfer of immovable property in the disturbed areas of the state.

The high court noted as far as the relief prayed for the suspension of certain provisions of the 1991 Act -- vires of which were challenged in the writ petition itself -- goes, the merits of the writ petition was required to be addressed.

The apex court, however, said the petitioners could pursue their pending plea challenging the provisions of the Act before the high court.

It said the main petition was pending before the high court for the last three years and the petitioners could request the high court's chief justice for an early hearing.

"Are you not interested in a early hearing before the high court?" the bench asked.

The petitioners counsel said they wanted the main matter to be heard soon in the high court.

"We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the division bench of the high court," said the top court and dismissed the plea.

The bench, however, clarified if the request for an early hearing in the main matter was made, the high court would consider it.