UNION OF INDIA versus JYOTI PRAKASH MITTER

Citation: [1971] 3 S.C.R. 483 · Decided: 21-01-1971 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 10 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
483 
UNION OF INDIA 
v. 
JYOTI PRAKASH MITTER 
January 21, 1971 
[J. c. SHAH, C.J., s. M. SIKRI, v. BHARGAVA, K. s. HEGDE, 
A. N. GROVER AND I. D. DUA, JJ.] 
Cvnstitution of India, 1950, Arts. 132(1) & 2t1(3)~rant of leave 
to Supreme Court agains~ judgment of single Judge of High Court-When 
permissible--Procedure to be followed by President when acting under 
A'rt. 217(3). 
Ne.rural Justice-If party effected entitled to personal hearing. 
Article 217(3) of the Constitution incorporated by the 19th Amend· 
ment Act, was given retrospective effect from January 26, 1950, and 
hence, all questions relating to the age of a Judge of a High Court had 
to be decided by the President after consultation with the Chief Justice 
of India. The respondent raised a dispute regalrding his age claiming that 
his date of birth was December 27, 1904, and not December 27, 1901. 
The Secretary of the Ministry of Home Affairs drew up a note tracing 
the history of the dispute and invited the President to determine the age 
of the respondent. 
The note was submitted through the Minister of 
Home Affairs, and Prime Minister .. The President then called upon the 
respondent to make such representation as he may wish to make and to 
produce such evidence as he may desire. 
Thereafter, all communication 
to and from the respondent, his representations to the President and docu-
mentary evidence on which he relied, were all submitted through the 
Secretary of the Ministry of Home Affairs. 
The respondent made a 
request for oral hearing in his various communications. 
He protested 
against the reference bv the Ministry of Home Affairs to the Director 
of the Central Forensic Institute of the documents submitted by him 
and requested that the originals may be returned to him to enable him 
to have them examined by an independent expert. In reply to that letter 
the Secretary of Ministry of Home Affairs wrote that the procedure to 
be followed and the opportunities to be given to the respondent depended 
entirely upon the discretion of the President and the question of returning 
the documents produced by the respondent did not arise at that stage. 
The respondent was also informed that the question whether he should 
have an oppdrtunity of filing expert evidence will be considered later and 
that he would be given an opportunity to put forward his case about the 
evidcntiary value of the documents produced by him and that any deci-
sion thereon would be arrived at by the President after affording him 
reasonable opportunity in that behalf. 
After receiving the report of the 
Director of the Central Forensic Institute the Pre>ident referred the ques-
tion to the Chief Justice of India for his advice on the procedure to be 
adopted and the Chief Justice gave his advice to the President. 
jfhe 
copies of the reports of the Director, Central Forensic Institute, Were 
forwarded by the Home Secretary to the respondent with a forwarding 
letter by which the respondent was informed that if he bad any comments 
to make on the opinion expressed by the Director they may be submitted 
and if the respondent desired he may also adduce evidence in rebuttal in 
the for;n of expert opinion supported by appropriate affidavits within one 
484 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1971) 3 S.C.R. 
month. 
The respondent submitted that the evidence tendered was con-
.cl'!sive in his favour. and .there was no question. of adducing any further 
evidence or any evidence 1n rebuttal. 
He also requested the President to 
_grant him an audience for the purpose of deciding the question of his age. 
The President then referred the matter to the Chief Justice of India 
asking him for his advice and the Chief Justice of India, after consider-
ing the evidence in the matter, recommended that the age of the res-
pondent be decided on the basis that the respondent was born on Decem-
ber 27, 1901. 
The file relating to the matter was received in the 
President's Secretariat and was sent to the Secretary, Ministry of Home 
Affairs. 
The Secretary recorded a note requesting the Minister of Home 
Affairs, to recommend to the President that the age of the respondent 
!Ilay be determined in accordance v.itb the advice of the Chief Justice 
of InCia, and the Home Minister and the Prime Minister countersigned 
that endorsement. 
The file then was pfaced before the President and on 
the same day he recorded his decision that he accepted the advice tendered 
by the Chief Justi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.