fresh power to the President which was equal and analogous to the power under Article 372(2). This Court held that:
“8. It follows therefore that, as and from November 1, 1956, when the Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956, came into force, the President had the power to adapt the laws for the purpose of bringing the provisions of any law in force in India into accord with the provisions of the Constitution. It was under that power that the President issued the Adaptation of Laws (No. 1) Order, 1956, which, as has been shown, substituted a new clause (58) in Section 3 of the General clauses Act providing, inter alia, that the expression “State” shall, as respects any period after the commencement of the Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956, mean “a State specified in the First Schedule to the Constitution and shall include a Union Territory”. It cannot be said with any justification that there was anything repugnant in the subject or context to make that definition inapplicable. By virtue of Article 372A(1) of the Constitution, it was that definition of the expression “State” which had effect from the first day of November, 1956, and the Constitution expressly provided that it could “not be questioned in any court of law”. The High Court therefore went wrong in taking a contrary view and in holding that “Union territories are not ‘States’ for purposes of Article 312(1) of the Constitution and the preamble to the Act of 1951”. That was why the High Court erred in holding that the definition of “State” in the Cadre Rules was ultra vires the All India Services Act, 1951 and the Constitution, and that the Union territories cadre of the service was “not common to the Union and the States” within the meaning of Article 312(1) of the Constitution, and that the Central Government could not make the Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954 in consultation with the State Governments as there were no such governments in the Union territories.”
(emphasis supplied)
85
