UNION OF INDIA versus M.S. MOHAMMED RAWTHER

Citation: [2007] 9 S.C.R. 109 · Decided: 16-08-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. MATHUR, MARKANDEY KATJU · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

-~ 
UNION OF INDIA 
A 
v. 
M.S. MOHAMMED RA WTHER 
AUGUST 16, 2007 
[A.K. MATHUR AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
B 
Swatantarata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, I 980: 
Claim for pension-In writ petition Single Judge of High Court directing 
Union of India to consider and pass appropriate order on petitioner's C 
application-Division Bench in appeal directing Union of India to grant 
pension to petitioner w.ef 9.9.1989-Held: The Course adopted by Single 
Judge was correct as the matter required necessary investigation of facts-
lt is the duty of the State and the Union of India to consider all material on 
the subject and whether it is a case worth granting pension under the D 
Scheme-Court cannot encroach into executive or legislative domain and 
assume the role of investigation of facts-It has only judicial power to review 
the executive order on Wednesbury principles, but cannot arrogate to itself 
power of the executive-Court must exercise judicial restraint in such matters-
Order of Division Bench of High Court is set aside-Judicial review-Judicial 
restraint. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7336 of2002. 
From the final Judgment and order dated 29.06.2001 of the High Court 
ofKerala at Emakulam in Writ Appeal No. 2488 of2001. 
Paramjit Singh Patwalia, Amanpreet Singh Rahi, V. Mohana and Sushma 
Suri for the Appellant. 
Sanjay Parikh, A.N. Singh and Jitin Sahni for the Respondent. 
The Order of the Court was delivered by 
ORDER 
Heard learned counsel for the parties. 
109 
E 
F 
G 
H 
110 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2007) 9 S.C.R. · 
A 
This appeal is directed against the order of the Division Bench of the 
High Court of Kerala whereby the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court 
has directed the Union of India to grant Swatentrata Samman Sainik Pension 
(for short SSS Pension') to the petitioner (respondent herein) as claimed by 
him in his Original Petition with effect from 09.09.1989 and the amount should 
B be paid within a period of two months. 
Aggrieved against this order, the present appeal has been filed by the 
Union of India. 
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 
C 
The Division Bench was hearing an appeal against the order passed by 
the learned Single Judge whereby the learned Single Judge had given a 
direction to the Union of India to consider and pass an appropriate order on 
the petitioner's application for grant of SSS Pension to the writ petitioner. The 
learned Single Judge quashed Exh.P-6 and Exh.P-8 (the orders passed by the 
D Union of India rejecting the petitioner's prayer for pension) and remitted the 
matter back to the Union of India to consider the matter afresh after providing 
a necessary opportunity to the respondent for considering his prayer for 
grant of the SSS pension. Aggrieved by this order, the matter was taken up 
by the appellant before the Division Bench on which the Division Bench 
passed the impugned order. Hence the present appeal by the Union of India. 
E 
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 
We are of the opinion that the course adopted by the learned s:ngle Judge 
was the correct course and the matter should have been remitted back to the 
Union of India to decide the. question of grant of freedom fighter's pension 
F afresh. It required necessary investigation of facts as to whether the incumbent 
was entitled to SSS pension or not. The courts cannot encroach into ·the 
executive or legislative domain, and cannot assume the role of investigation 
of facts. It is the duty of the State and the Union of India to have considered 
all the material on the subject and consider whether it is a case worth granting 
pension as per the SSS Pension Scheme, 1980. The court has only judicial 
G power to review that executive order on Wednesbury principles, but it cannot 
arrogate to itself the power of the executive. If the order passed by the Union 
of India is not justifiable on Wednesbury principles the court can only set 
it aside and remit the matter back to the executive for a fresh decision, but 
the court cannot assume the power of the Unicn of India. The court must 
exercise judicial restraint in such matters. There is broad separation of powe!"s 
H under the Constitution, and one organ of the State should not ordinarily 
U.0.1. v. M.S. MOHAMMED RAWTHER 
111 
' 
encroach into the domain of another. Montesquieu's theory broadly applies A 
in India too. 
Accordingly, we set aside the order of the

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