SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M Ahmadi, C.J.I., J.S.Verma, M.K.Mukherjee, N.P.Singh, S.P.Bharucha, JJ.
T.N.Seshan, Chief Election Commissioner Of India: Cho S.Ramaswamy: B.K.Rai: Common Cause (A Registered Society)
Versus
Union Of India
Case No. : .
Date of Decision : 7/14/95
Advocates Appeared: Agarwal Neeta : Agarwala E.C. : Agrawal Mahesh : Aruna : Banerji Milon K. : Bhardwaj Sumant : Bhasme A.S. : Bhasnic A.S. : Chandrasekharan M. : Chetty A.Ranganadham : Chopra Pankaj : Chopra W.C. : Devarajan H. : Dogra Sunil : Dwivedi Ranjan : Ganapathi N.L. : Ganguli A.K. : Gupta N.N. : Hegde Sanjay : Jain Gopal : Jaiswal Kamini : Janardhan N. : Jethmalani Ram : Kak Purnima Bhatt : Kashyap M.M. : Khajuria Shirin : Khanna Shimona : Kumar E.R. : Malhotra Indu : Mariarputham A. : Mathur : Mathur Mohit : Mishra R.B. : Mudgal Mukul : Murlidhar S. : Nagaraja K.R. : Ningombarn S.K. : Palkhivala N.A. : Parameswaran P. : Parasaran K. : Parmeshwaran P. : Pillai A.V. : Prakash Navin : Prakash Sushil : Puri H.K. : Rajagopal G. : Ramaswamy G. : Rangam A.V. : Rao A.Subba : Rao P.P. : Reddy Niranjan : Seetharaman P.R. : Sharma Abha R. : Sharma Atul : Sharma O.P. : Sharma R.S. : Shourie H.D. : Sorabjee Soli J. : Subhashini A. : Swamy Subramanian : Venugopal K.K. : Vishwanathan K.V. : Walia S.
Constitution of India – Article 123, 324 and 319 –Election Commissioners (Conditions of Service) Amendment Ordinance, 1993 – Commissioners (Conditions of Service) Act, 1991 – Section 3 –Election Commission (Conditions of Service of Election Commissioners and Transaction of Business) Act, 1991 – President of India, in exercise of powers conferred upon him by promulgated an Ordinance Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners (Conditions of Service) Amendment Ordinance, 1993 to amend Chief Election Commissioner and other Commissioners (Conditions of Service) Act, 1991 – Ordinance was published in Gazette of India – Before we notice amendments made in 1991 Act by the said Ordinance it may be appropriate to notice provisions of long title of Act suggests it lays down conditions of service of Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners appointed Section 3(1 provides that CEC shall be paid a salary which is equal to salary of a Judge of Supreme court of India that an EC shall be paid a salary which is equal to salary of a Judge of a High court – Held, Allegations have been denied by Shri Krishnamurthy and Shri Gill does not support CEC when he says he was abused – Although these allegations and counter-allegations found their way into the Press, we do not think any useful purpose will be served by washing dirty linen in public except showing both CEC and Shri Krishnamurthy in poor light – CEC and the ECs are high-level functionaries. They have several years of experience as civil servants behind them. All of them have served in responsible positions at different levels. It is a pity they did not try to work as a team. The efforts of Shri Gill to persuade the other two to forget past and to get going with the job fell on deaf ears – Unfortunately, suspicion and distrust got the better of them. We hope they will forget and forgive start on a clean state of mutual respect and confidence and get going with the task entrusted to them in a sporting spirit always bearing in mind the fact that the people of this great country are watching them with expectation. For the sake of people and the country we do hope they will eschew their egos and work in a spirit of camaraderie – Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
A.M. Ahmadi, CJI. -:
(1) THE President of India, in exercise of powers conferred upon him by clause (1 of Article 123 of the Constitution of India, promulgated an Ordinance (No. 32 of 1993 entitled "The Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners (Conditions of Service) Amendment Ordinance, 1993" (hereinafter called "the Ordinance") to amend "The Chief Election Commissioner and other Commissioners (Conditions of Service) Act, 1991" (hereinafter called "the Act"). This Ordinance was published in the Gazette of India on 1/10/1993. Before we notice the amendments made in the 1991 Act by the said Ordinance it may be appropriate to notice the provisions of the 1991 Act. As the long title of the Act suggests it lays down the conditions of service of the Chief Election Commissioner (hereinafter called the CEC) and Election Commissioners (hereinafter called the ECs) appointed under Article 324 of the Constitution of India. Section 3(1 provides that the CEC shall be paid a salary which is equal to the salary of a Judge of the Supreme court of India. Section 3(2 says that an EC shall be paid a salary which is equal to the salary of a Judge of a High court. Section 4 lays down the term of office of the CEC and ECs to be six years from the date on which the incumbent assumes charge of his office provided that the incumbent shall vacate his office on his attaining, in the case of the CEC, the age of 65 years and the EC the age of 62 years, notwithstanding the fact that the term of office is for a period of six years. Section 8 extends the benefit of travelling allowance, rent-free residence, exemption from payment of income tax on the value of such rent-free residence, conveyance facility, sumptuary allowance, medical facilities, etc., as applicable to a Judge of the Supreme court or a Judge of the High court to the CEC and the ECs, respectively. By the Ordinance the title of the Act was sought to be amended by substituting the words "and to provide for the procedure for transaction of business by the Election Commission and for matters" for the words "and for matters". By the substitution of these words the long title to the Act got further elongated as an Act to determine the conditions of service of the CEC and other ECs and to provide for the procedure for transaction of business by the Election Commission and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. In Section I of the Principal Act for the words and brackets "the Chief Election Commissioner a and other Election Commissioners (Conditions of Service)" the words and brackets "the Election Commission (Conditions of Service of Election Commissioners and Transaction of Business)" came to be substituted with the result that the amended provision read as the Election Commission (Conditions of Service of Election Commissioners and Transaction of Business) Act, 1991. The definition clause in Section 2 also underwent a change, in that, the extant clause (b) came to be renumbered as clause (c) and a new clause (b) came to be substituted by which the expression "Election Commission" came to be defined as Election Commission referred to in Article 324 of the Constitution of India. Consequent changes were also made elsewhere. In Ss. (1 of Section 3, after the words "Chief Election Commissioner", the words "and other Election Commissioners" came to be inserted with the result that they came to be placed on a par in regard to salary payable to them and Ss. (2 came to be omitted. In Section 4 the first proviso came to be substituted as under:
"PROVIDED that where the Chief Election Commissioner or an Election Commissioner attains the age of 65 years before the expiry of the said term of six years, he shall vacate his office on the date on which he attains the said age."
Thus the age of superannuation of both the CEC and the ECs was fixed at 65 years. If they attain the age of 65 years before completing their tenure of six years they woul
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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.