Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Bombay : 59 Bom L R 769)
28th March, 1958.
S.R. DAS, C.J.I., T.L. VENKATARAMA AYYAR, B.P. SINHA, S.K. DAS AND A.K. SARKAR, JJ.
1. Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia
(in C. A. No. 455 of 57)
2. Shri Shriyans Prasad Jain and Another
(in C. A. No. 456 of 57)
3. Shri Jai Dayal Dalmia and another
(in C. A. No. 457 of 57)
4. Union of India
(in C. As. Nos. 656 to 658 of 57) Appellants
Versus
1. Shri Justice S. R. Tendolkar and Others
(in C. As. Nos. 455 to 457 of 57)
2. Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia
(in C. A. No. 656 of 57)
3. Shri Shriyans Prasad Jain and another
(in C. A. No 657 of 57)
4. Shri Jai Dayal Dalmia and Another
(in C. A. No. 658 of 57) Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 455 to 457 and 656 to 658 of 1957.
Advocates appeared
Mr. G. S. Pathak, Senior Advocate, M/s. S. K. Kapur, P. N. Bhagwati and Ganpat Rai, Advocate with him, for Appellants in C. A. No. 455 of 57 and Respondent in C. A. No. 656 of 57; Mr. Sachin Choudhry, Senior Advocate, Mr. R. J. Joshi, Advocate and M/s. J. B. Dada Chanji, Rameshwar Nath and S. N. Andley, Advocate of M/s. Rajinder Narain & Co., with him, for Appellants in A. As. Nos. 456 and 457 of 57 and Respondents in C. As. Nos. 657 and 658 of 57: Mr. C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General for India, Ms. G. N. Joshi, K. H. Bhabha and R. H. Dhebar, Advocates, with him, for Respondent No. 4 in C. As. Nos. 455 to 457 of 57 and Appellant in C. As. Nos. 656 to 658 of 57.
Key Points: - Parliament can make laws for inquiry into any definite matter of public importance, including matters against individuals or companies, provided there is an intelligible differentia and a rational relation to the legislative object (!) (!) . - The classification made by the Act must be founded on an intelligible differentia and have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved, and courts may presume constitutionality and consider matters of common knowledge and history (!) (!) . - The government’s discretion to select persons or companies for inquiry is not unlimited; it must act in good faith on materials available, and such discretion is not discriminatory merely because others similarly situated are not included (!) (!) . - The provisions empowering the Commission to recommend action "as and by way of securing redress or punishment" are beyond the scope of the Act, because the Commission lacks judicial power and its recommendations are not enforceable proprio vigore; these words should be deleted (!) (!) . - The Act does not delegate essential legislative functions, as it lays down a clear policy and the inquiry is ancillary to legislation, not an exercise of judicial power (!) (!) .
Judgment
S. R. DAS, CJI. : These six several appeals are directed against a common judgment and order pronounced on 29th April 1957, by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in three several Miscellaneous Applications under Art. 226 of the Constitution, namely, No. 48 of 1957 filed by Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia (the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 455 of 1957), No. 49 of 1957 by Shri Shriyans Prasad Jain and Shri Sital Prasad Jain (the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 456 of 1957) and No. 50 of 1957 by Shri Jai Dayal Dalmia and Shri Shanti Prasad Jain (the appellants in Civil Appeal No. 457 of 1957). By those Miscellaneous Applications the petitioners therein prayed for an appropriate direction or order under Art. 226 for quashing and setting aside notification No. S. R. O. 2993 dated 11th December 1956, issued by the Union of India in exercise of powers conferred on it by S. 3 of the Commissions of Enquiry Act (LX of 1952) and for other reliefs. Rules were issued and the Union of India appeared and showed cause. By the aforesaid judgment and order the High Court discharged the rules and dismissed the applications and ordered that the said notification was legal and valid except as to the last part of cl. (10) thereof from the words "and the action" to the words "in future cases" and directed the Commission not to proceed with the inquiry to the extent that it related to the aforesaid last part of cl. (10) of the said notification. The Union of India has filed three several appeals, namely, Nos. 656, 657 and 658 of 1957, in the said three Miscellaneous Applications complaining against that part of the said judgment and order of the Bombay High Court which adjudged the last part of cl. (10) to be invalid.
2. The Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) received the assent of the President on 14th August 1952, and was thereafter brought into force by a notification issued by the Central Government under S. 1 (3) of the Act. As its long title states, the Act is one "to provide for the appointment of Commissions of Inquiry and for vesting such Commissions with certain powers". Sub-section (1) of S. 3, omitting the proviso not material for our present purpose, provides :
"The appropriate Government may, if it is of opinion that it is necessary so to do, and shall, if a resolution in this behalf is passed by the House of People or, as the case may be, the Legislative Assembly of the State, by notification in the official Gazette, appoint a Commission of Inquiry for the purpose of making an inquiry into any definite matter of public importance and performing such functions and within such time as may be specified in the notification, and the Commission so appointed shall make the Inquiry and perform the functions accordingly."
Under sub-s. (2) of that section the Commission may consist of one or more members and where the Commission consists of more than one member one of them may be appointed as the Chairman thereof. Section 4 vests in the Commission the powers of a civil Court while trying s suit under the Code of Civil Procedure in respect of the several matters specified therein, namely, summoning and enforcing attendance of any person and examining him on oath, requiring discovery and production of any document, receiving evidence on affidavits requisitioning any public record or copy thereof from any Court or officer, issuing commissions for examination of witnesses or documents and any other matter which may be prescribed. Section 5 empowers the appropriate Government, by a notification in the Official Gazette, to confer on the Commission additional powers as provided in all or any of the sub-ss. (2), (3), (4) and (5) of that section. Section 6 provides that no statement made by a person in the course of giving evidence before the commission shall subject him to, or be used against him in, any civil or criminal proceeding except a prosecution for giving false evidence by such statement provided that the s
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
