M. Satyanarayana Vs. The State of
Karnataka & ANR [1986] INSC 34 (12 March 1986)
MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J) MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI
(J) SINGH, K.N. (J)
CITATION: 1986 AIR 1162 1986 SCR (1) 692 1986
SCC (2) 512 1986 SCALE (1)564
ACT:
A. Supreme Court Rules 1966 Rule 5A of order
XV - When the certificate issued under Article 133(1)(b) of the Constitution by
the High Court is unwarranted on the facts of the case the certificate must be
revoked and the appeal be dismissed.
B. Construction of a statute, explained -
Construction of the word "and" in clause (iii) of Rule 4 of the
Karnataka Medical Colleges (Selection of Candidates for Admission) Rules 1984
explained - Subb-clause (a) cannot be read independently of sub-clause (b).
HEADNOTE:
The appellant who is a student of some
academic distinction and ability sought admission to the Ist year of MBBS
Course under the special category being a son of a freedom fighter or political
sufferer within the meaning of clause (iii) of Rule 4 of the Karnataka Medical
Colleges (Selection of Candidates for Admission), Rules 1984 who had
participated in 1942 Movement and was imprisoned from 10th of September, 1942
to 2nd of October, 1942. Since he was not granted admission under that
category, he filed a writ petition before the Karnataka High Court contending
that sub-clause (a) of clause (iii) of Rule 4 of the 1984 Rules should be read
independently as well as sub-clause (b) not only of each other but also what
follows by way of proviso though not so mentioned. Both the Writ Petition and a
further appeal to the Division Bench were dismissed.
However, the High Court granted a certificate
under Article 133(1)(b) of the Constitution.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court, ^
HELD : 1. Under Rule 5A of Order XV of the
Supreme Court Rules, 1966 when a party to whom a certificate of fitness to
appeal has been granted by the High Court, the Supreme Court 693 may, either
dismiss it summarily or direct issue of notice to all necessary parties or may
make such orders as the circumstances of the case may require. In this case the
question involved is a simple one and the intention and the purpose of Rule 4
of the Karnataka Medical Colleges (Selection of Candidates for Admission) Rules
1984 is manifest and in the language there is no difficulty. The certificate
under Article 133(i)(b) of the Constitution to the effect that in the opinion
of the Karnataka High Court the question involved needs to be decided by the
Supreme Court is unwarranted. [696 D-E]
2.1 A statute cannot be construed merely with
reference to grammer. Statute, whenever the language permits, must be construed
reasonably and rationally to give effect to the intention and purpose of the
legislature. The expression "and" in clause (iii) of Rule 4 has
generally cumulative effect requiring the fulfilment of all the conditions that
it joins together and it is the antithesis of "or". The expression
"and" in the instant case, cannot be read disjunctively. [696 C-D]
A.K. Gopalan v. The State of Madras, [1950] S.C.R. 88 at 126; and Ishwar Singh
Bindra & Ors. v. The State of U.P., [1969] 1 S.C.R. 219 applied.
2.2 It is not possible to hold that
sub-clause (a) should be read independently of sub-clause (b). If the
expression "and" in clause (a) is read independently then there was
no need for him to suffer at all and mere participation would be enough to make
him a political sufferer. If it were to be held so it would defeat the
rationale the Rule 4 defining a political sufferer or freedom fighter in the
Rules. [695 G-H; 696 C]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 600
of 1986.
From the Judgment and Order dated 2.12.1985
of the Karnataka High Court in Writ Appeal No. 2665 of 1985.
P.R. Ramasesh for the Appellant.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
694 SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. This is an appeal by certificate under article 133
(1)(b) of the Constitution from the decision of the Division Bench of the High
Court of Karnataka dismissing the appeal against the judgment of the learned
single Judge of that High Court. The appellant herein who is a student of some
academic distinction and ability sought admission to the 1st year of M.B.B.S.
Course to the Directorate of Medical Education, Karnataka. The appellant was an
applicant to one of the Government seats in the Medical Colleges managed by the
Government or one of the seats to which the Government was entitled to in the
private medical colleges.
The appellant was seeking admission under
special category reserved for sons of political sufferers or freedom fighters.
The relevant rule is Rule 4 of the Karnataka Medical Colleges (Selection of
Candidates for Admission) Rules 1984. Note (iii) of the said Rule has defined a
political Sufferer or Freedom Fighter as follows :
"A person (a) who prior to 15th August,
1947 participated in the National Movement for the emanicipation of India, that
is in the struggle for Indian Independence; and (b) who even after 15th August,
1947 participated in the struggle in any princely State for securing accession
of such State to the then dominion of India, who on account of such
participation - (i) has suffered imprisonment or detention for a period of not
less than three months, the said period being calculated taking into account
the period of remission, if any, granted for good conduct, other like reasons;
or (ii) has been awarded capital punishment; or (iii) had died while undergoing
sentence or detention; or (iv) was killed or became permanently incapacitated
by Police or Military firing or lathi charge; or 695 (v) lost his job, property
or other means of livelihood;
(vi) where certificates of imprisonment are
not available due to records being destroyed, etc., an affidavit by the
political sufferer about his imprisonment supported by a certificate from a
Member of Parliament or a Member of the State Legislature, who has been in jail
with him specifying the period of imprisonment would be accepted." The
case of the appellant was that his father had participated in 1942 Movement and
was imprisoned from 10th of September, 1942 to 2nd of October, 1942. His
further case is that because of the aforesaid participation, his grand father
i.e. father of the appellant's father, was annoyed and turned him out of the
house and so the father of the appellant could not pursue his studies and
therefore could not qualify himself well for good job. The appellant claimed
admission on the ground of being a son of a freedom fighter or political
sufferer and that he belongs to a special category and should be treated as
such. It is contended that sub-clause (a) of clause (iii) of the note 4 of the
Rules should be read independently as well as sub-clause (b) not only of each
other but also what follows by way of proviso though not so mentioned. The
learned judge was unable to accept that contention. The division Bench accepted
this view of the learned single Judge.
Reservations in favour of sons of political
sufferers are considered to be belonging to a special category. There is
rationale behind it. Those who are political sufferers undergo certain
disadvantages and pass on such disadvantages to their children. They will be in
a worse position than the children of those who are not political sufferers for
the purpose of taking adequate education, attention etc. because their parents
might have languished in any prison or might have been deprived of property.
Looked at from that point of view, political sufferer should be an identifiable
person who could be recognised as such on certain rational basis.
It is, therefore, manifest that a person to
be a political sufferer must have suffered in any one of the five ways stated
in sub-clause (i) to (v) of clause (b).
696 If the expression 'and' in clause (a) is
read independently then there was no need for him to suffer at all and mere
participation would be enough to make him a political sufferer. That would
defeat the rationale behind the rule. It would, therefore, frustrate the
intention and purpose of the legislature. The expression 'and' in these
circumstances cannot be read disjunctively. It is not possible to hold that
sub-clause (a) should be read independently of sub-clause (b). A statute cannot
be construed merely with reference to grammar. Statute whenever the language
permits must be construed reasonably and rationally to give effect to the
intention and purpose of the legislature. The expression 'and' has generally a
cumulative effect, requiring the fulfilment of all the conditions that it joins
together and it is the antithesis of 'or'. In this connection reference may be
made to A.K.
Gopalan v. The State of Madras, [1950] S.C.R.
88 at 126. See also the observations of this Court in Ishwar Singh Bindra &
Ors. v. The State of U.P., [1969] 1 S.C.R. 219. This construction, put by High
Court, in our opinion, is logical and reasonable construction. The High Court
as mentioned hereinbefore has granted a certificate under article 133 (1)(b) of
the Constitution. We find that the question is a simple one and the intention
and the purpose of the rule is manifest and in the language, there is no
difficulty. The certificate under article 133 (1)(b) of the Constitution, in
our opinion, was therefore unwarranted. We, therefore, revoke the certificate
and dismiss the appeal summarily under Rule 5-A of Order XV of the Supreme
Court Rules, 1966. We, however, make it clear that the appellant, the student
in question, is a student of some credit and distinction and has obtained 74%
of the marks in his examination. His case should be considered favourably and
objectively in the general category for admission.
In the facts and circumstances of the case,
there will be no order as to costs.
S.R. Appeal dismissed.
Back
