UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS versus MAJOR S.P. SHARMA AND OTHERS

Citation: [2014] 4 S.C.R. 327 · Decided: 06-03-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.S. CHAUHAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2014] 4 S.C.R. 327 
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 
v. 
MAJOR S.P. SHARMA AND OTHERS 
(Civil Appeal Nos.2951-2957 of 2001) 
MARCH 6, 2014 
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. CHELAMESWAR AND 
M.Y. EQBAL, JJ.] 
Administrative law: 
Doctrine of pleasure - Judicial review - Scope of -
Termination of Armed Forces Personnel - Held: The order 
of termination passed against the Army personnel in exercise 
A 
B 
c 
of pleasure doctrine is subject to judicial review - But while 
exercising judicial review, the Supreme Court cannot D 
substitute its own conclusion on the ba~is of material on 
record - When the President in exercise of its constitutional 
power terminates the services of the Army officers, whose 
tenure of services are at the pleasure of the President and 
such termination is based on materials on record, then the 
Court in exercise of powers of judicial review should be slow E 
in interfering with such pleasure of President exercising 
constitutional power - Analysis of entire facts of the case and 
the material produced in Court and an exhaustive 
consideration of the matter showed that the power of pleasure 
exercised by the President in terminating the services of the 
F 
respondents did not suffer from any illegality, bias or ma/afide 
or based on any other extraneous ground, and the same 
cannot be challenged on the ground that it was a· camouflage 
-
The onus lay on the respondent-officers who alleged 
malafides - There was no credible evidence to hold that the G 
order of termination was baseless or malafide - Constitution 
of India, 1950 - Doctrine of pleasure. 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
327 
H 
328 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 4 S.C.R. 
A 
Art. 311 - Applicability to Armed Forces Personnel -
Held: Not applicable - Therefore, no enquiry as to whether 
the order was by way of punishment sine qua non for 
applicability of Art.311, was warranted. 
8 
Art.310(1)- Scope of- Held: No provision in any statute 
can curtail the provision of Art.310. 
Army Act, 1959: 
ss.18 and 19 - Held: Army Act cannot in any way 
c override or stand higher than constitutional provisions 
contained in Art.309 and consequently no provision of Army 
Act could cut down the pleasure doctrine as enshrined in 
Art.310 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Arts.309, 310 -
Doctrine of pleasure. 
D 
s. 18 - Where continuance of Army officers in service is 
not practicable for security purposes and there is loss of 
confidence and potential risk to the security issue then such 
offic~rs can be removed under pleasure doctrine - s. 18 is in 
consonance with constitutional power conferred on President 
E 
~mpowering the President to terminate his services brought 
to his notices - In such cases, the Army officers are not 
entitled to claim an opportunity of hearing - Constitution of 
India, 1950-Arts.309, 310- Doctrine of pleasure - Doctrine 
F 
of natural justice. 
Res judicata: 
Reopening of issues through fresh round of litigation on 
discovery of a fact - Held: The discovery of a reinvestigated 
fact could be a ground of review in the same proceedings, 
G but the same cannot be made ba$iS for re-opening the issue 
through a fresh round of litigation - A fresh writ petition or 
Letters Pat~nt Appeal which is in continuation of a writ petition 
cannot be filed co/laterally to set aside the judgment of the 
same High Court rendered in earlier round of litigation 
H upholding the termination order - The principle of finality of 
UNION OF INDIA v. MAJOR S.P. SHARMA 
329 
litigation is based on a sound firm principle of public policy -
A 
It is not permissible for the parties to reopen the concluded 
judgments of the court as it would not only tantamount to 
merely .an abuse of the process of the court but would have 
far reaching adverse affect on the administration of justice -
It would also nullify the doctrine of stare decisis which cannot B 
be departed from unless there are compelling circumstances 
· to do so - The judgments of the court and particularly the 
Apex Court of a country cannot and should not be unsettled 
lightly - Doctrines of public policy - Doctrine of stare decisis. 
Precedent: 
c 
Binding effect of - Held: Law declared by Supreme Court, 
being the law of the land, is binding on all courts/tribunals and 
authorities in India in view of Art. 141 of the Constitution - The 
doctrine of stare decisis promotes a certainty and consistency D 
in judicial decisions and promotes confidence of the people 
in the system of the judicial administra

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