K. LAKSHMINARAYANAN versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

Citation: [2018] 14 S.C.R. 689 · Decided: 06-12-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. SIKRI · Disposal: Leave granted

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
689
K. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 11887 of 2018)
DECEMBER 06, 2018
[A. K. SIKRI, ASHOK BHUSHAN AND
S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.]
Government of Union Territories Act, 1963:
s.3(3) – Nominations made by the Central Government in
exercise of power u/s. 3(3) to the Legislative Assembly of Union
Territory of Puducherry – Whether Central Government under
obligation to consult the Council of Ministers/Chief Minister of
Government of Union Territory of Puducherry and the nomination
by Central Government to be made only with the concurrence of
the Government of Puducherry – Whether there is a constitutional
convention to consult the Government of Puducherry, on the strength
of the fact that on six earlier occasions when the nominations were
made, the Central Government has consulted the Government of
Puducherry before making nominations – Held: For nomination by
Central Government, concurrence of Council of Ministers/Chief
Minister of Government of Union Territory of Puducherry not
required – There is no established practice or convention that names
for nominations to members of the Legislative Assembly has to
emanate from Chief Minister and can be made by Central
Government only after concurrence by Chief Minister – In exercising
the power u/s. 3(3) no particular statutory procedure having been
prescribed except the exercise of power as per Allocation of Business
Rules and Transaction of Business Rules, 1961 – Nominations made
cannot be held to be vitiated on the submission that a particular
procedure which was followed in some earlier cases was not
followed.
s.3(3) – Nomination of members of the Legislative Assembly
of Union territory by Central Government – Expression “Central
Government” in s.3(3) – Whether the expression “Central
Government” means an Administrator, who has to exercise the power
of nomination that too on the aid and advise of the Council of
[2018] 14 S.C.R. 689
689
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
690                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2018] 14 S.C.R.
Ministers of the Union Territory of Puducherry – Held: Definition
of Central Government, as occurring in s.3(3) has to be read as to
mean the President and not the administrator – Definition of Central
Government means the President is not controlled by the second
expression “and shall include the administrator” – Ordinary or
popular meaning of the word “the President” occurring in s.3(8)(b)
of the 1897 Act has to be given and the second part of the definition
shall not in any way control or affect the first part of the definition
– In the definition of Central Government, an administrator shall
be read when he has been authorised or delegated a
particular function under the circumstances – General Clauses Act,
1897 – s. 3(8).
s.3(3) – Nomination in the Legislative Assembly of the
Puducherry, whether a business of the Government to be transacted
in accordance with r.4(2) rw r.48 of the 1963 Rules – Held: It is not
the Business of the Government of Puducherry – It is a business of
Central Government as per s.3(3), to be carried out in accordance
with the Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961
and Government of India (Transaction of Business) Rules, 1961 –
Rules of Business of the Government of Puducherry, 1963.
s.3(3) – Nomination by Central Government in the Legislative
Assembly without concurrence of Government of Union Territory
of Puducherry – If violative of principles of Federalism and co-
operative Federalism – Held:Art.239A with regard to the Union
Territory of Puducherry itself envisages the constitution of
Legislative Council partly by nomination and partly by election –
Specific authority to nominate in the Legislative Council has been
conferred by law u/s. 3 to the Central Government – Thus, there is
no breach of federal principles.
s.3(3) – Recommendations made by the High Court in so far
as recommendations made in paragraph 5(iv) of the impugned
judgment – Sustainability of – Held: Recommendations contained
in paragraph No. 5 are nothing but recommendations to the
Parliament to frame legislation on various aspects as enumerated
in the recommendation – There being already Rules of Business for
carrying out the functions by the Central Government as per Article
77(3) of the Constitution, there is no justification for making
recommendation in paragraph No. 5 of the impugned judgment –
Thus, recommendations are set aside.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
691
s. 12 – Nominated members in the Legislative Asse

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