Back
RANGANATH MISRA AND M.M. DUTT, JJ.
Civil Appeals Nos. 1491-1501 of 1974, D/- 31-7-1987.
Bakshi Sardari Lal (dead) through L. Rs. and others, etc., Appellants
Versus
Union of India and others, Respondents.
Constitution Of India, 1950 - Article 132, 311(2), 77(3), 166(3), 361(1) - Police - Dismissed From Service - 18 policemen - Sardari Lal and two others being Sub-Inspectors and remaining being either Head Constables or Constables of Delhi Armed Police Force were dismissed from service by separate but similar orders by way of punishment -They challenged those orders - Whether court can scrutinize and examine facts and circumstances that led President to arrive at satisfaction that it was not expedient in interest of security of State to hold inquiry envisaged in Article 311(2) against petitioners – Held, President under clause (c) to proviso to Article 311(2) is fully covered by clause (1) of Article 361 and President is not answerable to any court for exercise and performance of his powers and duties under this clause of proviso to Article 311 and no court has jurisdiction to examine facts and circumstances that led to satisfaction of President - Police, indiscipline is bound. to give rise to serious problems of administration - It is, however, unnecessary to go into that aspect of matter as Government had made it known that they intended to treat even these 18 policemen liberally by giving them compassionate allowances - Matter has been sufficiently protracted, first order of dismissal was made a little more than 20 years back and in meantime some of policemen out of this group of 18 have died - In such circumstances to leave this matter for a future date for fixing compassionate allowance would not be just and proper - Court had suggested to learned counsel appearing for Union of India to have instructions and give us an indication of what was in view of Government when compassionate allowance was thought of – Court is not prepared to detain delivery of judgment on that ground - In our opinion, situation would be met in a just way if instead of paying a recurring allowance, a lump sum amount is paid to policemen who are alive or their legal representatives in case of policemen who are dead – Court accordingly direct that in case of Sub-Inspectors who were dismissed, a lump sum amount of Rs. 60,000/- in case of Head-Constables who were dismissed a sum of Rs. 50,000/- and in case of Constables a lump sum of Rs. 40,000/- should be paid within one-month from today – Appeal Dismissed.
The judgment does not explicitly overrule any specific previous case law. Instead, it reaffirms the principle that the exercise of certain constitutional powers by the President is not subject to judicial review, especially when based on personal satisfaction and discretionary judgment related to national security and discipline (!) . The decision emphasizes that such executive actions are final and not answerable to courts, aligning with the constitutional understanding that the President's satisfaction is a non-justiciable issue (!) .
Furthermore, the judgment clarifies that the requirement for the President to personally be satisfied cannot be upheld as a strict constitutional necessity, given the established legal framework that supports the exercise of such powers through the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers (!) . It confirms that these principles are consistent with the broader legal understanding that the President's decisions made within constitutional procedures are final and immune from judicial review (!) .
Overall, the judgment does not overturn any existing case law but rather clarifies and consolidates the legal position regarding the scope of the President's powers and the limits of judicial scrutiny in such matters.
Judgement
RANGANATH MISRA, J. :- These appeals are by certificate under Art. 132 and involve the determination of the amplitude contained and nature of the power conferred on the President by clause (c) of the second proviso of Art. 311(2) of the Constitution.
2. 18 policemen - Sardari Lal and two others being Sub-Inspectors and the remaining being either Head Constables or Constables - of the Delhi Armed Police Force were dismissed from service by separate but similar orders dated 14th April, 1967, by way of punishment. They challenged those orders before the Delhi High Court mainly contending that the exercise of power under clause (c) of the second proviso to Art. 311(2) was not upon Presidents personal satisfaction and as there - had been no inquiry as mandated by Art. 311(2), the dismissals were bad. The High Court did not accept the contention and rejected the writ petitions. The dismissed policemen carried appeals to this Court and by judgment dated 21st January, 1971 in Sardari Lal v. Union of India, (1971) 3 SCR 461 : (AIR 1971 SC 1547), a Constitution Bench of this Court set aside the judgment of the High Court in each of the writ petitions and quashed the several orders of dismissal on the ground that each of them was illegal, ultra vires and void. This Court held (at pp. 1550-51 of AIR) :-
"On the principles which have been enunciated by this Court, the function in clause (c) of the proviso to Article 311(2) cannot be delegated by the President to any one else in the case of a civil servant of the Union. In other words, he has to be satisfied personally that in the interest of the security of the State, it is not expedient to hold the inquiry prescribed by clause (2). In the first place, the general consensus has been that executive functions of the nature entrusted by the Articles, some of which have been mentioned before and in particular those Articles in which the President has to be satisfied himself about the existence of certain fact or state of affairs cannot be delegated by him to any one else. Secondly even with regard to clause (c) of the proviso, there is a specific observation in the passage extracted above from the case of Jayantilal Amrit Lal Shodhan (1964) 5 SCR 294 : (AIR 1964 SC 648) that the powers of the President under that provision cannot be delegated. Thirdly, the dichotomy which has been specifically introduced between the authority mentioned in clause (b) and the President mentioned in clause (c) of the proviso cannot be without significance. The Constitution-makers appearently felt that a matter in which the interest of the security of the State had to be considered should receive the personal attention of the President or the head of the State and he should be himself satisfied that an inquiry under the substantive part of clause (2) of Article 311 was not expedient for the reasons stated in clause (c) of the proviso in the case of a particular servant."
Following the judgment of this Court, the dismissed policemen were reinstated in service with effect from 16th April, 1971. & 5th of June, 1971, fresh orders of dismissal were served on these policemen again invoking the power under clause (c) of the second proviso to Art. 311(2) for dispensing with the inquiry. One of the representative orders is extracted below : -
"Whereas you, Shri Sardari Lal, Sub-Inspector being No. D-331 (present No. D 1177) of Delhi Police, held your office during the pleasure of the President."
"And whereas the President, after considering all the facts and circumstances of your case, is satisfied under sub-clause (c) of the proviso to clause (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution, that in the interest of the security of the State it is not expedient to hold, in relation to you, such inquiry as is referred to in clause (2) of the said Article 311 of the Constitution."
"Now, therefore, the President is pleased to dismiss you from service with immediate effect."
3. Several writ applications were again filed before the Hi
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
