PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES 185
Ayyangar’s point was that this proviso is related only to subclause (2). Now I think that if he will apply his mind to the necessities mentioned in sub-clause (2) he will find why the Constitution thought it enough to attach the proviso to sub clause (2) and did not feel it necessary to extend it to subclause (1). As my friends will see, sub-clause (2) of article 254 refers to a law, which—if my friends will allow me-I would call as a ‘protected law’, that is to say, a law which is not only passed by the State Legislature but a law which was reserved for the consent of the President and to which the President has given his consent. That is the law which is referred to in sub-clause (2). Now, it was felt that it might be argued that in the case of a law which, though passed by a State Legislature relating to the concurrent field, nonetheless was reserved for the consent of the President and to which the President had given his consent—obviously on the advice of the Central Government which represents the wishes of Parliament—the Central Government may be deemed, I am putting the argument, to be ‘estopped’ from doing any further thing by way of injuring that particular Act either through amendment or otherwise. It was to eliminate this kind of argument that once the law having been protected the Central Government—to use the term in the Evidence Act—was estopped, so to say, from taking any further action that the proviso was introduced. It was felt not necessary to extend this proviso to sub-clause (1) because the expression ‘to make a law’ is itself so wide that it could cover even the repealing of a law.
What does ‘making of a law’ mean? The making of a law, in ordinary terms, means: to enact an enactment where none exists; or, where an enactment exists; to add to
12 NOON . it, to vary it, to amend it, or to repeal it. All that is covered in the broad parase ‘making a law’ Therefore, as making a law included making a law repealing an earlier Act or creating another Act, it was felt that such a prevision as contained in the proviso was unnecessary in respect of sub-clause (1) of article 254. Therefore, article 254 carries the general implication involved, in the phrase ‘making of the law’ which includes repeal of the law. As sub-clause (2) of article 254 was felt not to carry that implication,—because