Perpetual tenure rejected for the Sikh Judicial Commission; statutory reorganisation action by Punjab upheld as valid implementation.

The Sikh Judicial Commission was construed as a body to be constituted from time to time, so its members do not hold office in perpetuity or for life; a purposive and harmonious reading of the statute, in light of its scheme and the Constitution, rejected perpetual tenure as inconsistent with the Act and Articles 14, 16 and 310. The statutory direction under the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 was also treated as a valid basis for the Government of Punjab's action in relation to the Commission, because the Central Government had not abdicated its essential power and the challenge of want of competence or excessive delegation was not accepted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the members of the Sikh Judicial Commission hold office in perpetuity or their tenure is co-terminus with the Board and subject to fresh constitution from time to time; (ii) Whether the notification issued under the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 validly empowered the Government of Punjab to act in relation to the Commission and whether the impugned notifications suffered from want of competence or excessive delegation.

Issue (i): Whether the members of the Sikh Judicial Commission hold office in perpetuity or their tenure is co-terminus with the Board and subject to fresh constitution from time to time.

Analysis: The statutory scheme treated the Board and the Commission as bodies to be constituted from time to time. The provisions governing constitution and appointment were read together with the dissolution and removal provisions, and the Court adopted a purposive and harmonious construction in the light of the changed working of the statute, its objects, and the constitutional scheme. A perpetual tenure was held to be inconsistent with the Act and with Articles 14, 16 and 310 of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion: The tenure of the Commission is not perpetual and the members do not hold office for life; the Commission is liable to be reconstituted from time to time and the appellant's contention on perpetuity was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the notification issued under the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 validly empowered the Government of Punjab to act in relation to the Commission and whether the impugned notifications suffered from want of competence or excessive delegation.

Analysis: The Court held that the Central Government had issued a statutory direction under the reorganisation law and had not abdicated or delegated its essential power. The nomination of the Government of Punjab was treated as a lawful mode of implementation for the inter-State body corporate, and the challenge based on excessive delegation was not accepted.

Conclusion: The notification and the consequent exercise of power by the Government of Punjab were upheld; the challenge to competence and excessive delegation failed.

Final Conclusion: The judgment affirmed that the Commission is not perpetual in tenure and that the impugned governmental action under the reorganisation framework was valid, resulting in dismissal of the appellant's principal challenge and allowance of the connected matters to the extent indicated.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute provides for constitution of a body from time to time and its scheme, read purposively and harmoniously, negatives perpetual tenure, the office cannot be treated as enduring for life; a statutory direction enabling implementation of reorganisation provisions does not amount to impermissible delegation when the authority remains acting under the statute.

---