GOKARAJU RANGARAJU ETC. versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Citation: [1981] 3 S.C.R. 474 · Decided: 15-04-1981 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: O. CHINNAPPA REDDY · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 8 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
474 
GOKARAJU RANGARAJU ETC. 
v. 
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 
April 15, 1981 
[ 0. CHINNAPPA REDDY, A.P. SEN AND 
BAHARUL ISLAM, JJ. ] 
De facto 
doctrine-Nature and scope of-Appointment of District Judge 
declared void-Judgment rer.dered by him, whether becomes void. 
Interpretation of statutes-Abundans cautela non nocet when applied-Legis-
lature, wheth~r makes superfluous legislation. 
The appellants in 
both the appeals were convicted of certain offences 
by two[District Judges.' By the time the appeals went up for hearing to the High 
Court, the appointment of the two District Judges was quashed by this Court as 
being in violation of Article 233 of the Constitution. 
The appellants contended before the High Court that having regard to the 
fact that the Supreme Court had quashed the appointment of District Judges, 
the judgments rendered by them in these tw.o cases became void. The High 
Court, rejecting the contention, held that since the District Judges held office 
under lawful authority, the judgments rendered by them during the tenure of 
their office were valid and that in any event the validity of the judgments could 
not be questioned in collateral proceedings. 
In appeal to this Court it was contended that trial by a Sessions Judge 
appointed in violation of Article 233 was not a trial by a Sessions Judge duly 
appointed to exercise jurisdiction in a Court of Sessions under section 9, Cr.P.C. 
and that the appellants' liberty was being taken a way otherwise than in accor-
dance with the procedure established by law and that the Constitution (Twen-
tieth Amendment) Act, 1966 would be a surplusage if the de facto doctrine was 
applied to judgments rendered by persons appointed as District Judges contrary 
to the provisions of Article 233 of the Constitution. 
· 
Dismissing the appeals, 
HELD : The l\\O Judges who gave the judgments in the two cases were not 
usurpers or intruders but were persons who discharged the functions and duties 
of Judges under colour of lawful authority. So long as an office is validily 
created it matters not that the incumbent was not validily appointed. A person 
appointed to a post of Sessions Judge would be exercising jurisdiction in the 
L 
G. RANGARAJU V. ANDHRA PRADESH 
475 
Court of Session and his judgments and orders would be those of that court and 
would continue to be valid notwithstanding that his appointment to such court 
might be declared invalid. On that account alone it cannot be said that the pro-
cedure prescribed hy law had not been followed. [487 E-F] 
Mi/wardv. Thatsher [1787] 2 T. R. 81 @ 87, Seaddling v. Lorant [1851] 3 
HLC 418, re. James (An Insolvent) [1977] 2 W.L.R. I, Norton v. Shelby County 
[1886] !18 US 425-30 Law Ed. 178; referred to. 
The doctrine of de facto envisages that acts performed de facto by the 
officers within the scope of their assumed official authority, in the interest of the 
public or third persons and not for their own benefit, are generally as valid and 
binding as if they were the acts of officers de jure. [478 HJ 
The de facto doctrine is founded on good sense, sound policy and practical 
expedience. It is aimed at the prevention of public and private mischief and 
protection of public and private interest. It ·avoids endless confusion and 
needless chaos. An illegal appointment may be set aside and a proper 
appointment may be made but the acts of those who hold office de facto are not 
so easily undone. They may have lasting repercussions and confusing sequels 
if attempted to be undone. [ 479 B] 
Pu/in Behari v. King Emperor [1912] 15 
Cal Law Journal 517@ 574, 
Immedisetti Ramkrishnaiah Sons v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr. AIR 1976 
A.P. 193 ; referred to. 
A defective appointment of a de facto judge cannot be permitted to be 
A 
B 
c 
D 
questioned in a litigation between two private litigants. If this were not so, so 
E 
soon as a Judge pronounces a judgment litigation may be commenced for a dec-
laration that the judgment was void because the judge was no judge. To question 
a Judge's appointment in an appeal against his judgment is such a collateral 
attack. [485 B-C] 
The de facto doctrine saves acts done by a Judge whose appointment has 
later been declared void, from being invalidated. 
The doctrine is recog-
F 
nised in Article 71(2) (which declares that acts done by the President in the 
exercise of his powers shall not be invalidated by reason of the election being 
declared void) and

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.