Bakshi Sardari Lal (dead) Through Lrs& Ors. Etc. v. Union of India & Anr.

Court

Supreme Court of India

Decided

31 July 1987

Case no.

0

Bench

Misra Rangnath

Facts

The case originated from the dismissal orders dated April 14, 1967, against the appellant-police personnel, which were later quashed by the Supreme Court due to procedural irregularities. Following this, fresh dismissal orders were issued on June 5, 1971, under the second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The appellants challenged these new orders, arguing that they were invalid as they did not stem from the President's personal satisfaction, as required by the law.

Arguments

Petitioner Arguments

The petitioners contended that the dismissal orders issued in 1971 were invalid because they lacked the personal satisfaction of the President, which is a prerequisite under Article 311(2)(c). They argued that the High Court erred in ruling that the sufficiency of the President's satisfaction was not justiciable. The Court addressed these arguments by clarifying that the President's order was based on the advice of the Council of Ministers, thus not requiring personal satisfaction.

Respondent Arguments

The respondents, representing the Union of India, argued that the President had indeed considered all relevant facts and circumstances before issuing the dismissal orders, asserting that it was in the interest of state security to dispense with the inquiry. The Court found this argument compelling, noting that the dismissal was valid as it was executed under the constitutional framework and did not require personal satisfaction.

Precedents considered

The judgment referenced the case of Shamsher Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab, which established that the President's actions under Article 311(2) are subject to the advice of the Council of Ministers. This precedent was crucial in determining that the dismissal order was valid despite the lack of personal satisfaction from the President.

Legal principles

The Court considered several legal principles, including

• The necessity of personal satisfaction of the President for dismissals under Article 311(2)(c).
• The role of the Council of Ministers in advising the President.
• The justiciability of the President's satisfaction, which the Court found to be limited to instances of mala fides.

Decision and reasoning

Rationale

The Court reasoned that the dismissal orders were valid as they were made under the constitutional authority of the President, acting on the advice of the Council of Ministers. The Court emphasized that the requirement for personal satisfaction was not met in this case, but the procedural compliance was sufficient to uphold the dismissal. The Court also noted that the appellants had been reinstated without the need for leave from the Court, allowing the employer to issue a fresh dismissal order.

Outcome

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, affirming the validity of the dismissal orders issued on June 5, 1971. The Court did not impose any conditions for the appeal process, as the dismissal was upheld based on constitutional grounds.

Conclusion

This judgment reinforces the principle that the President's actions under Article 311(2) can be executed based on the advice of the Council of Ministers, rather than requiring personal satisfaction. It clarifies the procedural requirements for dismissals in the context of police personnel and highlights the limited scope for judicial review of the President's satisfaction.

Read the full judgment on the Supreme Court website (PDF)