Supreme Court Of India
M.H.BEG, CJI., Y.V.CHANDRACHUD,P.N.BHAGWATI,N.L.UNTWALIA,P.N.SHINGHAL,JASWANT SINGH,P.S.KAILASAM, JJ.
State of Karnataka - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
Original Suit No. 8 of 1977
Decided On : 11/08/1977
Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 131, 368, 245, 255, 249, 250, 352, 360, 248, 257, 256, 356, 163, 75, 164, 194, 105, 1, 2, 3, 4, 13, 226, 355, 297, 299, 300, 10, 59, 65, 162 - Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 - Sections 3, 5, 2, 6, 4, 8-C - Government of India Act, 1935 - Sections 204, 59, 49, 37, 99, 100, 213 - General Clauses Act, 1897 - Section 3 - Jammu and Kashmir Act - Section 10 – Election – Political Parties – Parliament - It is reasonable to presume that object of this compaign of slander is mainly to tarnish image of Congress party my colleagues and myself in an effort to gain if possible power for your party in State immediately after your party was totally rejected by electorate of State in recent Lok Sabha elections insinuation was that whole object of manipulated charges against Chief Minister was to vilify him and his Government and to bring him down in estimation of public so as to destroy support which Congress party had from people of State - Held, Further impugned notification is beyond powers conferred on Union Government - In this view question whether is ultra vires of power of Parliament or not does not arise - It is necessary that Commission of Inquiry should be appointed in order to maintain and safeguard purity of Union and State administration - But such Commission of Inquiry should be strictly in accordance with Constitution and should not affect Centre-State relationship proposal now pending before Parliament for appointment of a Lok Pal to conduct such inquiries is a move in right direction if sufficient constitutional safeguards are provided for institution of Lok Pal - Appeal is dismissed.
Judgement
BEG, C.J.I. :- "India, that is Bharat, shall be a 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 Art. 131 of the Constitution of India, any constitutionally unjustifiable trespass by the Union Government upto 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 asd 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 exclusively within the sphere of the States legislative and executive power"; and, secondly, that if the provisions of the Act do cover the Central Govt. Notification, they are ultra vires for contravention of "the terms of the Constitution as well as the federal structure implicit and accepted as an inviolable basic feature of the Constitution." Consequently, the plaintiff seeks a perpetual injunction to restrain the respondents, the Union of India and Shri A. N. Grover, the one-man Commission on Inquiry into "charges of corruption, nepotism, favouritism and misuse of governmental power against the Chief Minister and other Ministers of the State of Karnataka", from acting under the Central Governments notification.
2. The plaintiff States case is: that, the Congres party was returned by the electors by a majority at an election held in the State in 1972; that, the majority party in the legislature elected Shri Devraj Urs as its leader who then formed his Government as required by Art. 163 of the constitution; that, the Government thus installed, by what must be deemed to be the will and decision of the State Legislature, continues to enjoy the confidence of the legislature and is in office; that, in the recent Lok Sabha elections, the Congress party headed by Shri Devraj Urs achieved a resounding success by having won 26 out of 28 seats so that the Janta party, which is in power at the Centre, must be deemed to have been rejected by the electorate, but it is indirectly, through the appointment of a Central Commission of Inquiry, trying to discredit the Congress Party and its leaders in the State of Karnataka, and, thereby, interfering with the democratic machinery of control and supervision of the Government of the State provided by the Constitution itself.
3. On 26th April, 1977, the Union Home Minister sent a letter to the chief Minister of the State communicating the allegations contained in a memorandum submitted by certain members of the opposition party in the Karnataka State Legislature and asked him to make his comments. The Chief Minister gave a reply dated 13th May, 1977, a copy of which was attached to the plaint.
4. The Chief Minister, in his reply, complains that "slanderous propaganda has been unleashed without any verification of the truth or otherwise of the allegation or past history of most of the charges." He points out that broadcasts and press reports had given him an intimation of the allegations sent to him even before they were received by him with the Home Ministers letter. The Chief Minister said: "It is reasonable to presume that the object of this compaign of slander is mainly to tarnish the image of the Congress party, my colleagues and myself in an effort to gain, if possible, power for your party in the State immediately after your party was totally rejected by the electorate of the State in the recent Lok Sabha elections." The insinuation was that the whole object of manipulated charges against the Chief Minister was
followed : State of Rajasthan v. Union of India
considered : State of Rajasthan v. Union of India
referred to : State of Rajasthan v. Union of India
dissented from : Observations of Chandrachud,J. in State of Rajasthan v. Union of India
A. Sanjeeni Naidu v. State of Madras
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala
Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain
Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Shri Justice S. R. Tendolkar
A. Sanjeevi Naidu v. State of Madras
Kathi Raning Rawat v. State of Saurashtra
State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad
Brajanandan Sinha v. Jyoti Narain
relied on : Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain
Virendra Singh v. State of U. P.
followed : P. V. Jagannatha Rao v. State of orissa
Krishna Ballabh Sahay v. Commission of Enquiry
followed : Brajnandan Sinha v. Jyoti Narain
Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Shri Justice S. R. Tendolkar
relied on : KesavanandaBharati v. State of Kerala
Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain
referred to : State of W. B. v. Union of India
Brajnandan Sinha v. Jyoti Narain
Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Shri Justice S.R. Tendolkar
P. V. Jagannath Rao v. State of orissa
Krishna Ballabh Sahay v. Commission of Inquiry
Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Shri Justice S. R. Tendolkar
referred to and explained : State of West Bengal v. Nripendra Nath Bagchi
Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab
followed : Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain
referred to and explained : Observations of Sikri, C. J. in Union of India v. H. S. Dhillon
referred to : A. K. Gopalan v. State of Madras
State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh
I. C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab
K. K. Kochuni v. State of Madras and Kerala
State of M. P. v. Ranojirao Shinde
Prem Chand Garg v. Excise Commissioner, U.P.
Sakal Papers Ltd. v. Union of India
Jagannath Baksh Singh v. State of U. P.
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.