Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
R.R. DALAVAI
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF TAMIL NADU
DATE OF JUDGMENT07/05/1976
BENCH:
BEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH
BENCH:
BEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH
RAY, A.N. (CJ)
SINGH, JASWANT
CITATION:
1976 AIR 1559 1976 SCR 601
1976 SCC (3) 748
ACT:
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.
HEADNOTE:
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 Court
^
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. [602]
JUDGMENT:
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
Respondent.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
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.
S.R Appeal allowed
603