R.R. Dalavai Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
 INSC 154 (7 May 1976)
BEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH BEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH RAY,
A.N. (CJ) SINGH, JASWANT
CITATION: 1976 AIR 1559 1976 SCR 601 1976 SCC
Pension scheme to anti-Hindi
agitators-Constitutional validity of Constitution of India Article 351.
Budget sanction through Appropriation Act 38
of 1974 for payment of pension to anti-Hindi agitators by an executive order is
unconstitutional-Madras Budget Manual.
The appellant challenged the constitutional
validity of the pension scheme of the respondent-State by which the anti-Hindi
agitators were to be paid pension from the Consolidated Fund of the State. The
High Court dismissed the writ holding that (1) the spirit and letter of Art.
351 was not violated and (2) in view of the Appropriation Act 38 of 1974, the
payment was not illegal.
Allowing the appeal by special leave, the
HELD: (1) The pension scheme formulated by
the Tamil Nadu Government contains the vice of disintegration and fomenting
fissiparour tendencies. If any State will be engaged in exicting emotion
against Hindi or any other language, such provocation has to be nipped in the
bud because these are anti-national and anti-democratic tendencies. [602C-D]
(2) There is no legislative sanction in the instant case for such pension
scheme. The Government by an executive order could not authorise payment of
pension scheme. The pension scheme is unconstitutional and the Budget sanction
is equally unconstitutional. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal
No. 1116 of 1975.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and
order dated 21st January, 1975 of the High Court of Madras at Madras in Writ
Petition No. 3962 of 1972.
Petitioner in person; for the Appellant.
A. V. Rangam and (Miss) A. Subhashini; for
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
RAY, C.J. This appeal is by special leave from the judgment dated 21 January,
1975 of the Madras High Court.
The appellant made an application under
Article 226 challenging the power of the Government of Tamil Nadu to grant of
pension to Anti-Hindi agitators. The appellant further challenged the power of
the State to make payment from the Consolidated Fund of the State Exchequer.
Article 351 of the Constitution says that it
shall be the duty of the Union Government to promote the spread of the Hindi
language to 602 develop so that it may serve as a medium of expression for all
the elements of the composite culture of our country.
The appellant contended that the spirit and
letter of Article 351 is violated by the Pension Scheme of the Tamil Nadu
State. The appellant said that the agitators who brought about violence broke
the law and were honoured by the pension scheme of the State.
The High Court said that the Stat Legislature
has control over purse and that in the view of the State Legislature the
agitators against Hindi fought for a cause and, therefore, those who are
eligible should be granted pension. The High Court found that if a scheme is
provide which is not destructive of the Directive Principles but aimed at
amelorating those who the legislature thought deserve that treatment Article
351 was not violated.
The High Court found that because of
Appropriation Act No. 38 of 1974 it could not be said that payment was illegal.
In our opinion the pension scheme formulated
by the Tamil Nadu Government contains the vice of disintegration and fomenting
fissiparous tendencies. If any State will be engaged in exciting emotion
against Hindi or any other language such provocation has to be nipped in the
bud because these are anti-national and anti-democratic tendencies.
The Madras Budget Manual 4th Edition was
referred to by the appellant. The appropriation in the present case shows that
a fund was kept apart to meet the pension scheme. There is no legislative
sanction for such pension scheme. The Government by an executive order could
not authorise payment of pension scheme. The appellant is right in his
contention that the pension scheme is unconstitutional and the budget sanction
is equally unconstitutional.
For these reasons the judgment of the High
Court is set aside.
A mandamus will go directing the respondent
to forbear from implementing the pension scheme. The State will be competent to
claim refund of moneys illegally and unconstitutionally paid. The appellant is
entitled to costs to be paid by the State.