Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC1677; 43(1977)CLT653(SC); [1977(35)FLR1]; 1977LabIC908; (1977)3SCC94; [1977]3SCR678; 1977(9)LC417(SC)
A.C. Gupta, J.1. The respondents in all these fourteen appeals some of which are on certificate & some by special leave are extra departmental agents connected with the postal department. Six of these appeals are from the Kerala High Court. seven from the Andhra Pradesh High Court & one from the Orissa High Court. These respondents were either dismissed or removed from service during the period between January 1, 1966 and June 19, 1974, and admittedly the order of dismissal or removal was passed without complying with the provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The question in each case is, whether the respondent held a civil post as contemplated in Article 311 of the Constitution; if he did the dismissal or removal, as the case may be, would be unquestionably invalid for non compliance with Article 311(2).2. The conditions of service of the respondents are governed by a body of rules called the posts and Telegraphs Extra Departmental Agents (Conduct & Service Rules, 1964 (he...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC1361; (1977)3SCC592; [1978]1SCR1
M.H. Beg, C.J.1. Original Suits Nos. 1 to 6 of 1977, before us have been filed on behalf of the States of Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Punjab, Bihar, Himachal Pradesh and Orissa against the India under Article 131 of the Constitution of India. There are (sic) before us three writ Petitions, Nos. 67 to 69 of 1977, by three members of the Legislative Assembly of the State of Punjab against Union of India and Shri Charan Singh, the Home Minister in the Government of India and Shri Zail Singh, Chief Minister of Punjab. (sic) six suits and the three Writ Petitions raise certain common quesis(sic) of law and fact. They were, therefore, permitted to be argued (sic). We have already dismissed the suits and petitions after ring them at length and now; propose to state our reasons for doing as stated in our order of 29th April 1977. Before dealing with questions of fact and law I will indicate the nature of the reliefs; (sic) by each plaintiff under Article 131 and the grievance of each (sic)tione...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC2328; (1977)GLR919; (1977)0GLR90; 1977LabIC1857; (1977)4SCC193; [1978]1SCR423
1. We have heard the learned Attorney-General and Mr. Seervai fully on the various points arising in this appeal. We will deal with the arguments of the learned Counsel later by a considered judgment or judgments. For the present we will only say that since we are informed that the parties to the appeal have arrived at a settlement, the appeal shall stand disposed of in terms of that settlement. Those terms are as follows:On the facts and circumstances on record the present government do not consider that there was any justification for transferring Justice Sheth from Gujarat High Court and propose to transfer him back to that High Court.On this statement being made by the learned Attorney-General, Mr. Seervai Counsel for respondent No. 1 (Justice S.H. Sheth) withdraws the writ petition with leave of the Court.The following Opinions were delivered:Chandrachud, J. This appeal by certificate involves the question as to the constitutionality of a notification issued by the President of In...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC68; (1977)4SCC608; [1978]2SCR1
Beg, C.J.1. 'India, that is Bharat, shall be union of States'. The very first mandate of the first article of our Constitution to which we owe allegiance thus prohibits, by necessary implication, according to the plaintiff in the original suit now before us under Article 121 of the Constitution of India, any constitutionally unjustifiable trespass by the Union Government upon the domain of the powers of the States. The State of Karnataka, has, therefore, sued for a declaration that a notification dated 23-5-1977 (hereinafter referred to as 'The Central Notification') constituting a Commission of Inquiry in purported exercise of its powers under Section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), is illegal and ultra-vires. This declaration is sought on one of two alternative grounds : firstly, that the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, does not 'authorise the Central Government to constitute a Commission of Inquiry in regard to matters falling excl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC851; (1978)1SCC405; [1978]2SCR272
Krishna Iyer, J.1. What troubles us in this appeal, coming before a Bench of 5 Judges on a reference under Article 145(3) of the Constitution, is not the profusion of controversial facts nor the thorny bunch of lesser law, but the possible confusion about a few constitutional fundamentals., finer administrative normae and jurisdictional limitations bearing upon elections. What are those fundamentals and limitations We will state them, after mentioning, briefly what the writ petition, from which this appeal, by special leave, has arisen, is about.The basics2. Every significant case has an unwritten legend and indelible lesson. This appeal is no exception, whatever its formal result. The message, as we will see at the end of the decision, relates to the pervasive philosophy of democratic elections which Sir Winston Churchill vivified in matchless words :At the bottom of all tributes paid to democracy is the little man, walking into a little booth, with a little pencil, making a little cr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC419; [1978(36)FLR92]; (1978)GLR278; (1978)0GLR78; 1978LabIC515; (1978)ILLJ170SC; (1978)1SCC235; [1978]2SCR466; 1978(10)LC36(SC)
Goswami, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Gujarat, of October 8, 1976. Although it is a composite award disposing of two references by the State Government, we are concerned in this appeal with Reference (IT) No. 11 of 1975 as per the State Government notification of January 21, 1975 and even out of the two questions referred to therein only with regard to one of these regarding dearness allowance.2. The relevant issue which arises for consideration in this appeal may be quoted below :All workmen should be paid dearness allowance at the rate of 100% dearness allowance paid to the workers of the Cotton Textile Mills at Ahmedabad.3. Before we advert to the submission of Mr. H.R. Gokhale, appearing on behalf of the appellant, it will be appropriate to indicate that there is no dispute about granting of dearness allowance of the pattern of what is known as the Ahmedabad Textile D.A. The question to be determined by the Tribunal was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC597; (1978)1SCC248; [1978]2SCR621
M.H. Beg, C.J.1. The case before us involves questions relating to basic human rights. On such questions I believe that multiplicity of views giving the approach of each member of this Court is not a disadvantage if it clarifies our not infrequently differing approaches. It should enable all interested to appreciate better the significance of our Constitution.2. As I am in general agreement with my learned brethren Bhagwati and Krishna Iyer. I will endeavour to confine my observations to an indication of my own approach on some matters for consideration now before us. This seems to me to be particularly necessary as my learned brother Kailasam, who has also given us the benefit of his separate opinion, has a somewhat different approach. I have had the advantage of going through the opinions of each of my three learned brethren.3. It seems to me that there can be little doubt that the right to travel and to go outside the country, which orders regulating issue, suspension or impounding,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC1457; (1978)3SCC558; [1979]1SCR122
Krishna Iyer, J.1. What are we about A raging rain of writ-petitions by hundreds of merchants of intoxicants hit by a recently amended rule declaring a break of two 'dry' days in every 'wet' week for licensed liquor shops and other institutions of inebriation in the private sector, puts in issue the constitutionality of Section 59(f)(v) and Rule 37 of the Punjab Excise Act and Liquor Licence (Second Amendment) Rules, (hereinafter, for short, the Act and the Rules). The tragic irony of the legal plea is that Article 14 and 19 of the very Constitution, which, in Article 47, makes it a fundamental obligation of the State to bring about prohibition of intoxicating drinks, is pressed into service to thwart the State's half-hearted prohibitionist gesture. Of course, it is on the cards that the end may be good but the means may be bad, constitutionally speaking. And there is a mystique about legalese beyond the layman's ken !2. To set the record straight, we must state, right here, that no fr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC1675; AIR1980SC1579; 1978CriLJ1741; 1980CriLJ1099; (1978)4SCC494; (1980)3SCC488; [1979]1SCR392; [1980]2SCR557
Krishna Iyer, J.1.The province of prison justice, the conceptualization of freedom behind bars and the role of judicial power as constitutional sentinel in a prison setting, are of the gravest moment in a world of escalating torture by the minions of State, and in India, where this virgin area of jurisprudence is becoming painfully relevant. Therefore, explicative length has been the result; and so it is that, with all my reverence for and concurrence with my learned brethren on the jurisdictional and jurisprudential basics they have indicated, I have preferred to plough a lonely furrow.The Core-questions.2. One important interrogation lies at the root of these twin writ petitions : Does a prison setting, ipso facto, out-law the rule of law, lock out the judicial process from the jail gates and declare a long holiday for human rights of convicts in confinement, and (to change the mataphor) if there is no total eclipse, what luscent segment is open for judicial justice? Three inter-rela...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC52; 1978LabIC1644; (1979)2SCC124; [1979]1SCR820
Sen, J.1. These appeals by special leave directed against the Judgment of the Kerala High Court dated July 19, 1973, raise a question of far reaching importance. The question is whether an educational institution established and managed by a religious or linguistic minority is bound by the provisions of Ordinance 33(4), Chapter LVII of the Ordinances framed by the Syndicate of the University of Kerala, under Section 19(j) of the Kerala University Act, 1957.2. Smt. Lilly Kurian, the appellant herein, was appointed as Principal of the St. Joseph Training College for Women, Ernakulam in the year 1957. The College was established by the Congregation of the Mothers of Carmal, which is a religious society of Nnus belonging to the Roman Catholic Church, and is affiliated to the University of Kerala. It is administered by a Managing Board, and the Provincial of the Congregation is its President.3. On October 30, 1969, there was an unfortunate incident between the appellant and one P.K. Rajarat...
Tag this Judgment!