SUMAN GUPTA AND OTHERS ETC. versus STATE OF J & K AND OTHERS

Citation: [1983] 3 S.C.R. 985 · Decided: 19-09-1983 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
SUMAN GUPTA AND OTHERS ETC. 
v. 
STATE OF·J & KAND OTHERS 
September 19, 1983 
(Y. v. CHANDRACHUD, c. J., R. s. PATHAK AND_ 
. SABYASAC'Hl MUKHARJJ, JJ.] 
985 
CoKstitution of India, Art. 14-Powers and procedures resulting in 
unfairness· and arbitrariness....:....vio/ative of Art. 14. 
Ad"tinistrative Law-Vesting of absolute and un( ontrolled power in public 
authoritJ-;_Falls outside the Constitution and invalid. 
With a view to encourage national integration, a few States including 
respondent states agreed upon an arrangement by which a certain percentage 
of the seats in medical colleges was reserved for candidates from other States 
on a reciprocal basis. In the y'ear 1982-83 the respondent States made some 
nominations under the above arrangement. T.he validity of these non1inations 
was challenged in these y.•rit petitions and civil appeals on the ground, inter alia, 
ihat these nominations had been made by the State Governments in their 
absolute and arbitrary discretion, without reference to any obj~ctive criterion, 
or any controlling norms or guidetines._ 
Partly auowing the writ petitions and the appeals, 
HELD : The :Drincipl~ adopted by. the State Governments of nomi-
nating candidates in their absolute and unfettered choice to seats in !\1edical 
Colleges outside the State is invalid . But the non1inations already made will 
not be affected. [991 F-G; E] 
the exercise of all adn1inistrative power vested in public authority mus~ 
be structured within a system of controls informed by both relevance and 
reason-relevance in relation to the object which it seeks to serve, and reason 
A 
B 
c 
D 
l!l 
F 
in regerd to the manner in which attempts to do so. 
Art. 14 of the Consti-
' G 
tution is violated by powers and procedures w'..ich in themselves result in 
unfairness and asbitrariness. There is no doubt that in the realm of adminis~ 
trative power the element of disCieation may properly, find place, where the 
statute or the nature of the power intends so. But there is a well recoinised 
distinction between an administrative power to be exercised within defined 
limits in-the reasonable diScretion of designated authority and the vesting of 
H 
an absolute and uncontrolled power in such authority. One is power con-
trolled by law i;:ountenanced by the Constitution, the other falls outside the 
Constitution alto$etber. 
Prqceedin~ from there, it is evii;l~nt that ~fJPQ St;;lte 
\ 
B 
c 
D 
986. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1983] 3 s.c.a. 
Government desires to.advance the objective of national integration it must 
adopt procedures which are reasonable and are· related to the objective. In 
this Age of Reason, all law must measur~ upto. that standard, and necessarily 
:),. 
so also must all executive acts. [989 E-F; 989 G; 990 A·D] 
Jn the present cases,. viewed in this context and tested on the touchstone 
of our constitutional values, the claim of the State Government that the 
nature of the objective and the means adopted to serve ii' entitle it legitimately 
to vest in itself an absolute power in choosing candidates for nominaHon is 
to deny a fundament~l prin.ciple of our constitutional life and cannot be 
allowed to prevail. [990 D-E] 
Chifra Ghosh and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., [1970] I S.C.R., 413, 
420; Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 621; and Ramona 
Daya"ram Shelly v. The I"hternational Airpott Authority of India & Ors., [1979 j 
3 S.C.R. 1015, referred to. 
· 
The Medical Council of India is directed to formulate a proper consti-
tutional basis for determining the seiection of candidates for nomination to 
seats in Medical Colleges outside the State in the light of the observations 
contained in this judgment. Until a policy is s~ formulated and concrete 
criteria are embodied in the procedure selected, the nominations shall be made 
by selecting candidates strictly on the basis of merit, the candidates nominated 
being those, -in order of merit, irilmediately below the candidates selected for 
admission to the Medical Colleges of the home State. [991 G-H; 992 A] 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition Nos. 9078 to 9106, 
~ 
9025·43 of 1982, 24 & 35. 43-46 and 2839 of 1983 . 
.,_,i·· 
F 
G 
'· 
H 
(Under article 32 of the Constitution of India). 
WITH 
Civil Appeal° Nos. 3812 & 3813 of 1983. 
Appeals by Special leave from the Judgment and Order dated 
the 31st December, 1982 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in W.P. 
Nos. 6844 of 1982 & 693.7 of 1982. 
AND 
(CMP. Nos. 13616,

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