Legislative procedure

Petitioner was aggrieved of inserting a "comma" in between words "engineering" and "technologies" appearing in S.4(1) of National University of Technology Act, 2018 through corrigendum issued by National Assembly Secretariat

Validity

Procedure under R. 261 of Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the National Assembly, 2007, can be invoked only to give effect to amendments in a Bill accepted by the House and not otherwise

Amendment brought about in S.4(1) of National University of Technology Act, 2018, by insertion of a comma between the words "engineering" and "technologies" had at no material stage been subjected to a legislative process or accepted by the Parliament

Amendments in a statute no matter how insignificant made through a process other than the legislative process prescribed in the Constitution is a matter of public importance and could be judicially reviewed at the instance of a public interest litigant

It is the fundamental right of every citizen to ensure that legislation is carried out strictly in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the Constitution

Petitioner might not be personally aggrieved by corrigendum in question but when subjected to a challenge and given the fact that it was issued in order to amend S.4(1) of National University of Technology Act, 2018, without resort to the legislative process envisaged by the Constitution, High Court was left with no option but to declare it as without lawful authority and of no legal effect

High Court declared that corrigendum in question was issued without lawful authority and of no legal effect

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

Money Bill was a deviation or exception to the normal legislative process, therefore, being a special procedure it had to be construed strictly.