SHRI RAM KRISHNA DALMIA versus SHRI JUSTICE S. R. TENDOLKAR & OTHERS

Citation: [1959] 1 S.C.R. 279 · Decided: 28-03-1958 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUDHI RANJAN DAS · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 6 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

I 
S.O.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
279 
SHRI RAM KRISHNA DALMIA 
v. 
SHRI JUSTICE S. R. TENDOLKAR & OTHERS 
(and connected appeal) 
(S. R. DAS c. J., VENKATARAM:A AIYAR, B. P. SINHA, 
S. K. DAS, and A. K. SARKAR JJ.) 
Commission·of Inquiry-Legislation empowering Government to 
appoint Commission-Co'ltstitutionality-If violates guarantee of 
equality before the law-Notification setting up Commission and con-
ferring powers thereupon-Legality of-If ultra vires the Act-
Whether Commission usurps judicial functions-Commissions of 
Enquiry Act, r952 (LX of r952), s. 3-Constitution of India, Arts. 
r4_and 246: Seventh Schedule, Entry 94, List I and Entry 45, 
List Ill. 
In exercise of the powers conferred upon it by s. 3 of the 
Com~issions of Enquiry Act, 1952, the Central Government by a 
notification dated December II, 1956, appointed a Commission of 
Inquiry to inquire into and report in respect of certain companies 
mentioned in the Schedule attached to the notification and in res-
pect of the nature and extent of the control and interest which 
certain persons named in the notification exercise,d over these 
companies. By subsequent notifications the Central Government 
made all the provisions of sub-ss. (2), (3), (4) and (5) of s. 5 of the 
Act applicable to the Commission and fi¥ed a period of 2 years 
from February II, 1957, as the period within which the Commis-
sion was to exercise its function and to make its report. The 
four persons named filed three applications under Art. 226 of the 
. Constitution before the Bombay High Court questioning the vali-
dity of the Act and of the notification and praying for writs for 
quashing the same. The High Court dismissed the applications 
and ordered that the said notification was legal and valid except 
as to the last part of cl. IO thereof which empowered the Commis-
_sion to recommend the action which should be taken as and. by 
way of securing redress or punishment or to act as a preventive in 
future cases. The petitioners as well as the Union of India filed 
appeals: 
· 
Held, that the Act was valid and intra vires and that the 
notification was also valid excepting the words" "as and by way 
of securing redress or punishment " in cl. IO thereof which werlt 
beyond the Act. 
. 
The Act was enacted by Parliament under entry 94 of List I 
and entry 45 of List III of the Seventh Schedule of the Constituti~n 
whiCh relate to inquiries for the purposes of any of the matters in 
List I and in Lists II and III respectively. The inquiry which 
may be set up bJl a law made under these entrie.s. is pqt limited1 
• 
• 
March 28. 
280 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1959] 
I958 
in its scope and ambit, to fntnre legislative purposes only. Such 
. 
. 
a law m~y also be for administrative purposes and the scope of 
Shri Ram KYishna the 1nqu1ry under such a law will cover all matters which may 
Dalmia 
properly be regarded as ancillary to such inquiries. 
v. 
The Act does not delegate to the Government any arbitrary 
Shri Justice 
or uncontrolled power and does not Qffend Art. 14 of the Constitu-
s. R. Tendolkar !ion. The discretion given to the Government to set up a Com-
6- Others 
mission of Inquiry is guided by the policy laid down in the Act 
that the executive action is to be taken only when there exists <f 
definite matter of public importance into which an inquiry is 
' 
necessary. 
• 
Kathi Raning Rawat v. State of Saurashtra, [1952] S. C. R. 
435; applied. 
The Commission is merely to investigate, record its findings 
and make its recommendations which are not enforceable proprio 
vigor.. The inquiry or report cannot be looked upon as judicial 
inquiry in the sense of its being an exercise of judicial function 
properly so called and consequently Parliament or the Govern-
ment cannot be said to have usurped the functions of the ~udi­
ciary. 
The notification was well within the powers conferred on the 
Govern1uent by s. 3 of the Act and did not go beyond the provi-
sions of the Act. 
The conduct of an individual person or com-
pany or a group of individual persons or companies may, in certain 
circumstances, become a definite matter of public importance with .. 
in the meaning of s. 3( I) and call for an inquiry. Besides,. s. 3 
authorises the Government to appoint a Commission .of Inquiry 
not• only for· the purpose of making an inquiry into a definite 
matter of public importance but also for the purpose of perform-
ing such functions as may be specified in the notification. 

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