LexSTATE OF KARNATAKA versus UNION OF INDIA & ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
I
~
STATE OF KARNATAKA
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ANOTHER
November 8, 1977
[M. H. BEG, C.J., Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, P. N. BHAGWATI, N. L.
UNTWALIA, P. N. SHINGHAL, JASWANT SINGH AND
P. S. KAILASAM, JJ.]
Constitution of India 1950-Art. 131-Scope of-Commission of Inquiry
appointed by the Central Government under the
Cornmissions of lr_iquiry 4ct,
1952 to inquire into allegations of corruption, favouritism and nepotlsm agaifl!t
the Chief Minister of a State-Suit filed by the State under Art. 131-If main·
tainable-Central Government, if could constitute a Commission of Inquiry
against sitting Chief Mini.ster and Ministers of the State Government-Action
of Central Government, if destructive of federal structure of the Constitution
and distribution of powers betweell the Cen1re and the States-.ff subverts the
principle of collective responsibility under which Ministers are responsible only
to the State Legislature-If violates privileges of the menibers of the Assembly
under Art. 194(3).
Co1n1nissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 validity of-Section 3-Scope of-If
s. 3 ultra vires Part XI of the Constitution-Inquiry-Purpose and scope of-
"Defintte matter of public importance" meaning of.
Article 131 of the Constitution of India provides that the Supreme Court
shall have original jurisdiction in any dispute :- (a) between the Government of
!ndia and one or more States; or (b) between Government of India and any
State or States on one side and one or more other States on the other; or ( c)
between two or more States if and in so far as the dispute involves any question
(whether of law or fact) on which the existence or extent of a legal right
depends.
A memorandum alleging corruption, favouritism and nepotism against the
Chief Minister of the State of Kamat.aka was submitted to the Union Homo
Minister by certain opposition members of the State Assembly. The Chief
Minister repelled the allegations as frivolous and· pclitica.Ily motivated. By
a notification dated May 18, 1977 .the State
Government appointed
under
s. 3(1) of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, a one man com-
mission presided over by a retired Judge of the Karnataka High Court
for inquiring into the allegations specified in the nOtification.
By notifica·
tion dated May 23, 1977, the Government of India appointed under s. 3(1) of
the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, a one man commission presided over
by a retired judge of the Supreme Court to enquire into the charges made
agaimt the Chief Minister excluding "any matter covered by the notification
of the Government of Karnataka". Thereupon, the State Qiovemment filed in
this Court a suit under Art. 131 of the Constitution.
On the pleadings of the
parties, three issues were framed by this Court. These \Vere : (1) Is the suit
maintainable·? (2) Is the impugned notification ultra vires the powers of the
Central Government under
s. 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 ?
(3) Even if the notification falls within sec. 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry
Act is the section itself unconstitutional ?
It was contended on behalf of the plaintiff that : (I) the Central Govern·
ment has no jurisdiction or authority to constitute the Commission of Inciuiry
in the purported exercise of its powers under the Act; (2) the action of the
Central Government in appointing the Commission against the Ministers of the
State Government is destrnctive of the federal strncture of the Constitution
and the scheme of distribution of powers between the Centre and the States;
(3) under the Cabinet system of government the Council of Ministers is res-
ponsible to the Legislature for all its actions and the inquiry ordered by the
Central Government against the State Ministers, while they are in office would
subvert the principle of collective responsibility of Ministers to the Legislature;
(4) by virtue of Art 194(3) it is the privilege of the Assembly (and not of
1
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1978] 2 S.C.R.
\{
A
any other body) to appoint a Committee for inquiring into the conduct of
·,,any of its members; (S) interpretation of s. 3 of the 1952 Act in such a way
as to empower the Central Government to appoint a Co~ion for inquiring
into matters relating to any of the entries in List II of the Seventh Schedule
to the Constitution would make s. 3 itself ultra vires thet provisions of Part
XI of the Constitution; and (6) r:.ince on the basis of the report the Central
GovernmeExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.