R.K.JAIN versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1993] 3 S.C.R. 802 · Decided: 14-05-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. AHMADI · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 11 judgment(s) · cites 8 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
R.K.JAIN 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
MAY 14, 1993 
[A.M. AHMADI, M.M. PUNCHHI AND K. RAMASWAMY, JJ] 
Customs Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal Members (Recmit-
men t and Conditions of Sen1ice) Rules, 1987: Rules 1c,3,6, 
10.-CEGAT-President-Appointment of-Appointment of senior Vice-Presi-
dent as President-Legality and validity of-Appointment held valid bw need for 
appointing a silting or retired High Court Judge as President emphasised-Need 
for aniendment of Rule 10(4) emphasised. 
CEGAT-Writ in public interest-Allegation of mal-functioning in 
CEGAT-Eramination of allegation by a high level team directed. 
Indian Evidence Act, 1871: Sections 113, 114 and 161. State 
Documents-Right of Government to claim immunity from disclosure-Scope 
of-Claim for immunity should be supported by affidavit by Head of Department 
indicating reasonsforclaim-Oatlt of office secrecy adumberated in Article 74 (5) 
and Schedule 111 of Constitution does not absolve Minister from stating reasons 
in support of immunity-It is duty of Court and not exec111ive to decide whether a 
doc11ment needs immiinityfr01ri disclos11re. 
Constitutipn of India, 1950: 
F 
Article 75(3) and Schedule lll-Cabinet-Role and functions of-Cabii1et 
H 
documents-Need for secrecy-Extent of imm1111icyfrom disclosure. 
Article 74 (1)-Scope of-Advice tendered by Ministers to President-Bar 
of judicial review is to tlzefactwn of advice tendered by Council of Ministers to 
President-blll not to record i.e. material on which advice is founded. 
Articles 323A and 3138-Tribunals set up under-Need for a study by law 
Commission suggesting measures for improved functioning of Ti ibunals 
emphasised. 
802 
L 
' 
...
--
--
R.K. JAIN v. UNION OF INDIA 
803 
Judicial Review-ls basic fearure of Constitution-Cannot be disper,:sed 
A 
with by creating Tribunals under Articles 323A and 323B of 
Cons1itl//ion-Alternative Mechanism devised for judicial review should be 
effective and efficient-Court's anguish over in effectivity of alternative mecha-
nism devised for judicial review expressed Appeal to a Bench (lf two Judges of 
High Court over orders of Trib1mal suggested. 
Sen·ice law-Selection-Rule conferring power on Central Govemme111 to 
make appoi111111e11t-Co11rt can nor sit over the choice of selection. 
· Sen·ice law-Challenge to legality of offending action-Only aggrieved 
person has locus-Third party has no locus to canvass the legality of action. 
Maxim: Salus Popules Cast S11pre111a Lax-Meaning of 
B 
c 
By a letter dated December 26, 1991 addressed to the Chief Justice of 
India, the petitioner, Editor, Excise Law Times, complained that ever since 
D 
the retirement of President of the Customs, Excise and Gold control Appellate 
Tribunal (CEGA T) in 1985 no appointment of President was made as a result 
of which the functioning of th~ Tribunal was adversely affected. He also 
alleged mal-functioning in the CEGA T and sought directions for immediate 
appointment of the President as well as an enquiry .into the mal-functioning 
of CEGAT. The letter was treated as a Writ Petition in public interest 
E 
litigation and on February 25, 1992, this Court issued Rule Nisi to Union of 
India to make immediate appointment of the President of CEGA T, prefer-
ably a senior High Court ,Judge. Aller the directions were issued by this 
Court, Respondent No. 3, who was initially appointed as Judicial Member 
and subsequently as Senior Vice-President of the Tribunal, was appointed as. 
President. 
F 
The petitioner filed another petition challenging the appointment of 
President and sought to quash the same on·dte grounds that (1) the appoint-
ment was in breach of judicial order passed by this Court on FebruarJ 25, 
1992 because as per the convention a sitting or retired Judge of the High Court G 
should have been appointed as President in consultation with the Chief 
Justice of India; even though High Court Judges were available no serious 
attempt was made to requisition the services of one of them for appointment 
as President; (2) before the Act was made a positive commitment was made 
time and again b~· the Government on the Ooor of the House that judicial . 
independence of CEGA T is .fine qua non to sustain the confidence of the 
H 
804 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1993) 3 s·.c.R. 
A 
litigant pu!llic. The appointment of any person other than sitting or a.retired 
judge of the High Court as President would be in its breach; and (3) the 
appointment of Resp

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