ONKAR NATH & ORS. versus THE DELHI ADMINISTRATION

Citation: [1977] 2 S.C.R. 991 · Decided: 15-02-1977 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

991 
ONKAR NATH & ORS. 
v. 
THE DELHI ADMINISTRATION 
February 15, 1977 
[Y. v. CHANDRACHUD, P. K. GOSWAMI AND P. N. SH!NGHAL, JJ.J 
Defence of lndia Rules 1971-Rule 118(1 )(a) 
r/w 
Notification 
dated 
26-11-1973 pr~hibiting a strike "in connection with any industrial dispute", 
ingredients of-Legal evidence must Tfr led to prove the ingredients of an offence. 
·~ Judicial notice-Whether the courts can take judicial notice of facts namely 
"a railway strike was imminent" dnd such a strike was, in fact, launched on May 
A 
B 
8, 197 4 "in a trial for an offence of "exciting workmen 'to go on strike" -
C 
Section 46 and 57 of the Evidence Act (Act 1 of 1872), 1872. 
In respect of an alleged speech made, on May 5, 1974, at a meeting held in 
Tugblakabad Railway Station Yard inciting workers to go on strike from May 8, 
1974, the appellants who were leaders of the Northern Railwaymen's 
Union 
were convicted by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate under Rule 118 and 119 
·of the Defence of India Rules and sentenced to six months rigorous imprison-
ment. The order of conviction was upheld in appeal by the Sessions Court but 
in revision, the Delhi High Court while upholding the conviction reduced the 
D 
sentence to the period already undergone. 
In appeal hy special leave to this Court, the appellants contended (1) There 
was no legal evidence to ·warrant the conviction; (2) The courts below were not 
justified in taking judicial notice of the fact that on the date when the appellants 
delivered their speeches a railway strike was imminent and that such a strike 
was, in fact, launched on May 8, 1974 and (3) The conduct attributed to the 
appellants does not fall within the mischief of the order because inciting other 
workers to l!O on strike is outside the definition of the word "strike" contained 
E 
in rule 118(3)(b) of the Defence of India Rules, 1971. 
Allowing the appeal by special leave, the court, 
HELD : (1) The courts below were justified in assuming withrut formal 
evidence that the railway strike was imminent on May 5. 1974 and that a strike 
intended to paralyse the civic life of the nation was undertaken by a section of 
workers on May 8, 1974. 
[995A-B] 
(2) The purpose of s. 57 of the Evidence Act is to provide that the court shall 
take judicial notice of certain facts rather than exhaust the category of facts of 
which the court may in appropriate cases take judicial notice. 
Reco.!!llition of 
facts without formal proof is an act of expediency. 
Shutting the judicial eye 
to the existence of such facts and matters is in a sense an insult to common-
sense and would tend to reduce the judicial process to a meaningless and wa•ste-
ful ritual. No court insists on a formal Proof by evidence of notorious facis of 
history-oast or present and events that have rocked the nation need no nroof 
and are iudicially noticed. Judicial notice in snch ·matters takes place of proof 
and is of equal force. 
[994F-H, 995-A] 
(3) The Government possesses the power to issue an appropriate orde; under 
rule J 18(1) orohibitinll the strike "in connection with any industrial dispnte" 
even if there is no existing industrial disnute because the nower can be exercised 
oroohylactically by preventing a strike in connection with an imminent strike, 
[995C-DJ 
F 
G 
(4) Jn order to maintain a charue under rule 118(1) of the Defence of 
H 
India Rules, 1971. the prosecution has to establish not only that a strike was 
imminent or had actually taken place of which indicial notice may be teken. but 
further that the strike was in connection with the industrial dispute which is a 
matter of evidence. 
f995E-Fl 
992 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1977) 2 s.c.R. 
A 
. ( 5) What is chargeable as contravening the prohibition must under the order 
issued by the. Government of India under Rule 118(1) (a) is, in the. circum-
stances of this case, the wor_ds used by the speakers and not the gist of the 
speeches made by a member of the audience. 
A summary of spee~h may 
broadly and generally not be inaccurate and it may' not faithfully reflect what 
the speaker actually said and in what context. 
[9940-E] 
B 
. (6) Rule 118(1)(a) limits the p9wer of the Government to issue an appro-
pnate order, general or special, for prohibiting inter alia, a strike in connection 
with any industrial dispute. 
Since the rule does not empower the Government 
to issue an order prohibiting strikes. generally, whether it is in connection with 
the industrial dispu

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