2018 Supreme(SC) 1226

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.K Sikri, Ashok Bhushan, S. Abdul Nazeer, JJ.
K. LAKSHMINARAYANAN – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 11887 and 11888 of 2018
Decided on : 06-12-2018

IMPORTANT POINTS
Central Government u/s 3(3) of Act 1863 means ‘the President’. Administrator of the UT is not authorized, under Rulle 4(2) r/w 48 of Rules of Business, to recommend names for nominations as Member, Legislative Assembly.
Context, collocation and the object of words relating to such matter has to be kept in mind in applying definition u/s 3(8)(b), General Clauses Act, 1897.
‘Government’ under Rule 4(2) means "the Government of Puducherry". Cannot be stretched to be Central Government.
Nomination in the Legislative Assembly in the Puducherry is to be made by the Central Government.
Nomination in the Legislative Assembly of Puducherry is not the Business of the Government of Puducherry but of Central Government.
There is no established practice or convention requiring names for nominations emanate from Chief Minister and making the nominations by Central Government only after concurrence by Chief Minister.
Contention that nominated members should not vote on budget and no-confidence motion, rejected.

Headnote:(a) Government of Union Territories Act, 1963 – Section 3(3) – Central Government – Not defined in the Act – To be imported from General Clauses Act, 1897 – Section 3(8)(b) defines ‘Central government’ to "mean the President" "and shall include in relation to the administration of a Union territory, the administrator thereof acting within the scope of the authority given to him under article 239 of the Constitution" – Administrator will be Central Government under article 239 – Administrator authorized to exercise variety of executive functions under Rule 4(2) r/w Rule 48, Rules of Business – Right of nomination to be exercised by the Central Government under Section 3(3) of Act, 1963 not included. (Para 15)

       (1976) 2 SCC 942 – Relied upon

       (b) Interpretation of statute – Applying a definition from General Clauses Act 1897, section 3 – Context, collocation and the object of words relating to such matter has to be kept in mind in applying definition u/s 3(8)(b) – Inclusive part of definition cannot prevent the main provision from receiving its natural meaning – Held, definition of Central Government, meaning the President, is not controlled by the second expression "and shall include the administrator" – Therefore, definition of Central Government in Section 3(3) of the Act, 1963 means the President and not the administrator. (Para 18, 20, 21)

       (1976) 2 SCC 942; (1998) 1 SCC 458 – Relied upon

       (c) Rules of Business of the Government of Puducherry, 1963 – Rule 4(2) – ‘Government’ means "the Government of Puducherry" – Cannot be stretched to be Central Government. (Para 26)

       (d) Constitution of India – Article 239A r/w section 3(3), Government of Union Territories Act, 1963 – ‘Law’ – Means a Parliamentary law – Parliament enacting Act, 1963 providing for constitution of Legislative Assembly for Puducherry with thirty elected and three nominated members – Nomination of the members not covered by expression 'remaining business of the Government' – Therefore Rule 4(2) of Rules 1963 do not apply – Consequently Rule 48 also does not apply – Held, nomination in the Legislative Assembly in the Puducherry is to be made by the Central Government. (Para 28)

       (e) Constitution of India – Article 77(3) r/w Rule 2 and Rule 3 sub-rule (1) of Allocation of Business Rules and Second Schedule – "Ministry of Home Affairs”, "Department of States”, Heading III (7)(b) Union Territory of Puducherry – Held, power under Section 3(3) of Act, 1963 has to be transacted in the Ministry of Home Affairs, Department of States – rule 3, Government of India (Transaction of Business) Rules, 1961 – Held, nomination of members to Puducherry Legislative Assembly is to be disposed of by or under the general or special orders or the directions of the Minister-in-charge, that is, Home Minister – Nomination in the Legislative Assembly of Puducherry is not the Business of the Government of Puducherry but of Central Government. (Para 29, 31, 32, 33)

       (f) Constitution of India – Federalism – Essential characteristics – Distribution of executive, legislative and judicial authorities – Cannot be amended by a constitutional amendment being one of the basic structures of the Constitution – India, a quasi-federation with significant features of federal Constitution – Pragmatic federalism – Parliament enacting Act 1963 in exercise of powers under Article 239A – Act 1963 providing for a legislature of thirty elected and three nominated members – Section 3, Act 1953 specifically conferring power of nomination to Central Government – No requirement of consultation with Puducherry government – Held, no breach of federal principle in nomination by Central Government. (Para 38, 39, 45, 46, 51, 54)

       AIR 1965 SC 745; (1973) 4 SCC 225; (1977) 3 SCC 592; (1994) 3 SCC 1; (2006) 7 SCC 1; (2017) 12 SCC 1; (2018) 8 SCC 501; (1977) 3 SCC 592 – Relied upon

       (g) Constitutional convention – Practice or precedent becoming convention – A single precedent with a good reason may be enough to establish the rule – On the other hand, a whole string of precedents without such a reason will not become convention or rule, unless the persons concerned regarded them as bound by it – Convention may be broken with impunity – Purpose and object of constitutional convention – To ensure operation of legal framework of the Constitution in accordance with constitutional values and constitutional morality – Existence of a particular convention is to be established by historical and factual evidence. (Para 62, 68, 73)

       (1993) 4 SCC 441; (1971) 2 SCC 63 – Relied upon

       (h) Act, 1953 – Section 3 – Nomination of members to Legislative Assembly of Puducherry in 1985, 1990, 1996, 2006 and 2011 – Consultation with UT government – Whether a convention – Nominations in 1990, 1997, 2005, 2007 and 2014 made on recommendations of Chief Minister/LG – Not in 1995, 2001 and 2011 – In 1995 one name suggested by Chief Minister, President, Puducherry Pradesh Congress Committee and the Prime Minister each was notified – Subsequently cancelled by Ho e Ministry – No nominations made in 1995 – On the opinion of Home Ministry that no consultation with Chief Minister is required , no nominations were made in 2001, 2002 and 2003 – No final nominations could be made in the year 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2011 – Nominations were then made in 2014 and 2016 by Home Ministry on its own – Thus no uniform precedent in making nominations – Consultation for nominations not established as a rule in view of Central Government concluding that it is not bound by any rule in that regard – Acceptance of recommendations for nominations in certain years when government in the UT and the Centre was of the same party does not establish a convention – Held, there is no established practice or convention requiring names for nominations emanate from Chief Minister and making the nominations by Central Government only after concurrence by Chief Minister. (Para 83, 84, 88)

       (2009) 9 SCC 648 – Relied upon

       (i) Union Territory Act 1963 – Section 3 – Nomination of members to Legislative Assembly of the UT – High Court making recommendations for framing rules of procedure – Rules of Business already framed under Article 77(3), Constitution of India – Held, although there is no inhibition in the High Court making recommendations, instantly the High Court ought to desist from doing so. (Para 91)

       (1974) 2 SCC 831 – Relied upon

       (j) Union Territory Act 1963 – Section 12(1) – All questions at any sitting of the Legislative Assembly – To be decided by majority of votes of the members present and voting other than the Speaker – Contention that nominated members should not vote on budget and no-confidence motion – Rejected. (Para 94)

       Facts of the case:

       The writ petitions filed by the appellants questioning the nominations made by the Central Government in exercise of power under Section 3(3) of the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963 to the Legislative Assembly of Union Territory of Puducherry has been dismissed.

       Finding of the Court:

       There is no infirmity in the impugned judgment except the recommendation in Para 5 which is deleted.

       Result: Appeal dismissed.