Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Y.V. Chandrachud, CJI., E S Venkataramiah, J.
HARSHARAN VERMA, APPELLANT
Versus
CHARAN SINGH AND OTHERS, RESPONDENTS.
Civil Appeal No. 3491 of 1979 (On appeal by certificate from the Judgment and Order dated December 10, 1979 of the Allahabad High Court in W.P. No. 2402 of 1979), decided on November 19, 1984.
Constitution of India,1950 – Certificate - Seeking a mandate - Appellant had filed a writ petition in High Court of Allahabad challenging continuance in office of as Prime Minister and as Minister of Law Justice and Company Affairs stated briefly contention of appellant is that failed to seek mandate of within three weeks after assuming offices of Prime Minister as directed by President of India that instead of facing House he submitted resignation of his Government on August and that his continuation in a office thereafter as a caretaker Prime Minister without taking a fresh oath of offices was unconstitutional – Held, Government of was in office for a very brief spell - It fell soon after it assumed office indeed too soon - Issues raised by appellant are not longer live and it is not practice of this court to decide questions of mere academic importance - Court must however hasten to add that High Court is right in its view that appointment as prime Minister could not be said to be conditional upon his seeking a mandate of lok Sabha Our Constitution knows no such hybrid thing as a Prime Minister subject to a condition of defeasance - Conditions imposed by President may create considerations of political morality or conventional propriety but not of constitutional validity - Appeal is dismissed
ORDER
1. The appellant had filed a writ petition in the High Court of Allahabad challenging the continuance in office of Shri Charan Singh as the Prime Minister and Shri S. N. Kacker as Minister of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, stated briefly, the contention of the appellant is that Shri Charan Singh failed to seek the mandate of the Lok Sabha within three weeks after assuming the offices of the Prime Minister as directed by the President of India, that instead of "facing the House" he submitted the resignation of his Government on August 20, 1979 and that his continuation in office thereafter as a caretaker Prime Minister without taking a fresh oath of offices was unconstitutional. The writ petition was dismissed by the High Court by a Judgment dated December 10, 1979 but, it has granted a certificate of fitness to the appellant to file this appeal.
2. It is a well-known fact of history that the Government of Shri Charan Singh was in office for a very brief spell. It fell soon after it assumed office, indeed, too soon. The issues raised by the appellant are not longer live and it is not the practice of this court to decide questions of mere academic importance. We must, however, hasten to add that the High Court is right in its view that Shri Charan Singhs appointment as the prime Minister could not be said to be conditional upon his seeking a mandate of the Lok Sabha. Our Constitution knows no such hybrid thing as a "Prime Minister subject to a condition of defeasance". Conditions imposed by the President may create considerations of political morality or conventional propriety but not of constitutional validity. The High Court is also right that it was not necessary for Shri Charan Singh and his ministers to take a fresh oath after being called upon by the President to continue in office as a caretaker Government. Thus, the continuation in offices of Shri Charan Singh and his ministers was not unconstitutional.
3. For these reasons, the appeal is dismissed.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
