JUDGMENT

KRISHNA IYER, J. :- A preliminary divagation has become necessary since applications and enquiries had been made more than once about the postponement of the judgment. The first anniversary of the of closure of oral sub-missions in the above case is just over; and this unusual delay between argument and judgment calls from me, the presiding judge of the bench which heard the case, a word of explanation and clarifications os that misunderstanding about the judges may melt away in the light. A better appreciation of this courts functional adversities and lack of research facilities will promote more compassion than criticism and in that hope I add this note.

A Word of Explanation

2. The judicature, like other constitutional instrumentalities, has a culture of national accountability. Two factors must be highlighted in this context. A court is more than a judge; a collegium has a personality which exceeds its members. The price a collective process, free from personalilty cult, has to pay is long patience, free exchange and final decision in conformity with the democracy of judicial functionality. Sometimes, when divergent strands of thought haunt the mentations of the members, we pause, ponder and reconsider because we follow the words of Oliver Cromwell commended for courts by Judge Learned Hand: "My brethren, I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken." Utter incompatibility exists between judicial democracy and dogmatic infallibility; and so, in this case, we have taken time, more time and repeted extension of time to evolve a broad consensus out of our initial dissensus. Not procrastination but plural toil is the hidden truth behind the considerable interval.

3. Secondly, when important issues demand the courts collective judgment an informed meeting of instructed minds, in many ways, is a since qua non. But the torrent of litigation flooding the court drowns the judges in the daily drudgery of accumulated dockets. To gain leisure for fundamental reflections with some respite from paper-logged existence and supportive research from trained law clerks is a consummation devoutly to be wished if the final court is to fulfil its tryst with the Constitution and country. The Indian judicial process, sui generis in some respects, has its problems, Himalayan in dimension but hardly appreciated in perspective and in true proportions two which have been mentioned by me in extenuation of the great gap between closure for judgment and its actual pronouncement. Having said this, I must proceed to deal with the merits of the case and the conclusions we have reached in our diverse opinions. By majority, any way, we dismiss the appeal and find no merit in the contentions of the appellant.

4. The fundamental differences in approach - My learned brother Koshal, J. has, after long reflection on the issues in this appeal, expressed his conclusion with which I respectfully disagree. Our difference stems from basic divergence in legal interpretation and judicial perspective.

5. Law is no cold-blooded craft bound by traditional techniques and formal forceps handed down to us from the Indo-Anglian era but a warm-blooded art, with a break from the past and a tryst with the present, deriving its soul force from the Constitution enacted by the People of India. Law, as Vice President G. S. Pathak used to emphasise in several lectures, is a tool to engineer a peaceful civil revolution one of the components of which is a fair deal to the weaker human sector like the working class. The striking social justice values of the Constitution impact on the interpretation of Indian laws and to forget this essential postulate while relying on foreign erudition is to weaken the vital flame of the Democratic, socialist Republic of India. Chief Justice Earl Warren of the United States has spelt out with clarity and felicity the correct judicial approach to the issues at stake in this case :

Our judges are not monks or scien