Analysis of Supreme Court Judgment in Kirodi vs. Ram Parkash & Ors.

Insofar as the State of Punjab is concerned, a Second Appeal does not require formulation of a substantial question of law.

The caveat was that the legislation in question being the Punjab Act is a pre-Constitution Act and hence is not a legislation hit by the provisions of Article 254 of the Constitution of India which holds state enactments to be repugnant to the enactments when they run counter to the laws enacted by the centre through the concurrent list. The legislation was saved by Article 372(1) of the Constitution of India being a pre-Constitutional enactment which was to continue in to be force until altered or repealed or amended by a competent legislature. No such repeal took place, hence, the legislation continues to operate.

The effect of the judgment of the Constitution Bench is that insofar as the State of Punjab is concerned, a second appeal does not require formulation of a substantial question of law since the Punjab Act would be applicable for the State. Hence, Section 100 of the Code would not hold the field having supervening effect.

Judgement link : https://www.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2019/2985/2985_2019_Order_10-May-2019.pdf