GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU & ORS. versus BADRINATH & ORS.

Citation: [1988] 1 S.C.R. 490 · Decided: 15-10-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.P. SEN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU & ORS. 
;.. 
v. 
BADRINATH & ORS. 
OCTOBER 15, 1987 
B 
[A.P. SEN AND M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, JJ.] 
All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968-r.17-The rule applies .,, 
to acts done in exercise of official duties only-No member of the 
Service is prohibited from vindicating his private character for any act 
done by him in his private capacity. 
c 
Respondent No. I who was functioning at the relevant time as the 
commissioner of Archives and Historical Research, Tamil Nadu, -1 
delivered a speech at a functi'ln held by the History Association of the 
Presidency College, Madras criticising the time capsule buried in the 
precincts of the Red Fort at Delhi which led to a furore both in Parlia-
D ment as well as in the national press. The Government, feeling greatly 
embarrassed by the controversy, started a disciplinary inquiry against 
him on the view that being a civil servant it was not desirable that he 
should have participated in a public discussion on the time-capsule but 
later on dropped the same. However, just a day before that, a signed 
news-item appeared in a newspaper about the controversy regarding 
)"· 
E 
the time-capsule stating that a Government spokesman had charged 
respondent no. I as trying to 'sabotage the civil services from within'. 
Having failed in his efforts to ascertain from the Government the 
identity of its spokesman who had made this offending utterance against 
him or to induce it to issue a contradiction through the Press, respon-
dent no. I addressed a letter to the correspondent of the newspaper 
F 
asking .him to disclose the name of the Government spokesman. The 
correspondent, in his reply, stated that the Government spokesman was 
,h 
respondent no. 2, the Chief Secretary to the Government, who, during 
a telephonic conversation with him, had made the offending utterance. 
Respondent No. I made a representation to the Government with re-
gard to his grievance in this behalf but, finding that there was no 
G 
response, applied for sanction of the Government under r. 17 of the All 
India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968 seeking permission to institute a 
suit against respondent no. 2 for damages for defamation. The Govern-
}. 
ment refused to grant the permission and respondent no. I moved the 
High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution against the order of 
refusal. The writ petition was dismissed by a Single Judge, who inter 
H alia in his judgment referred to a concession made by the Advocate 
490 
GOVT. OFT. NADU v. BADRINATH 
491 
).. 
General appearing for the appellants that the act complained of was an 
A 
official act and, therefore, the intended suit was to vindicate an official 
act which was the subject matter of a defamatory criticism. Respondent 
No. 1 preferred au appeal under cl. 15 of the Letters Patent and a 
Division Bench allowed the appeal holding that the refusal of the State 
Government to grant the requisite permission under r. 17 could not be 
justified on the ground of public interest. 
B 
y 
Allowing the appeals, 
... 
HELD: According to its plain terms, r. 17 of the All India 
Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968 is in the nature of a restraint on a 
member of the All India Services from bringing a suit for damages for c 
defamation for an act done in the exercise of his official duties as a 
~-
public servant or from going to the press in vindication of his official act 
or character. Explanation to r. 17 seeks to restrict the scope and effect 
of the restraint placed by r. 17. No member of the Service is prohibited 
from vindicating his private character or any act done by him in his 
private capacity. Proviso thereto however casts on him a duty to report 
D 
to the Government regarding such action. [497B-C) 
In the instant case, respondent no. I made a speech incidentally at 
a time when he was holding the post of the commissioner of Archives & 
...\.. 
Historical Research, at a function organised by the History Association 
of the Presidency College, Madras. He was invited to make a speech on 
E 
the occasion presumably for his attainments, in the field. But the speech 
delivered by him on the occasion could not be treated to be an official 
act of his and therefore the suit brought by him against respondent 
no. 2, the then Chief Secretary of Tamil Nadu could not be treated to be 
a suit for the vindication of his official act. It is common knowledge that 
persons of erudition and eminence are often times asked to grace such 
F

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