1995 (4) TMI 324 - SC - Indian Laws

Dismissal Orders Under Article 311(2)(c) Upheld; Judicial Review Limited to Examining Mala Fides or Extraneous Grounds

A.K. Kaul and Ors. Versus Union of India (UOI) and Ors.

The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, affirming that the dismissal orders under Article 311(2)(c) were not vitiated by mala fides or based on ... - ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe judgment primarily revolves around the following core legal issues:1. Whether the exercise of power under Clause (c) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution is subject to judicial review.2. If judicial review is permissible, what is the extent and scope of such review in relation to the satisfaction of the President or the Governor under Article 311(2)(c)Rs.3. Whether the Government is obliged to disclose the material upon which the satisfaction of the President or the Governor was based, especially when a claim of privilege is invoked under Sections 123 and 124 of the Evidence Act.4. Whether the dismissal orders were mala fide or based on extraneous or irrelevant considerations, particularly considering the appellants' involvement with the Intelligence Bureau Employees Association (IBEA).ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue 1: Judicial Review of Article 311(2)(c)The Court examined whether the satisfaction of the President or the Governor under Article 311(2)(c), which allows for dismissal without an inquiry in the interest of the security of the State, is subject to judicial review. The Court referenced previous judgments, including S.R. Bommai and Tulsiram Patel, to determine that judicial review is indeed permissible. The Court emphasized that such review is limited to examining whether the satisfaction was vitiated by mala fides or based on wholly extraneous or irrelevant grounds.Issue 2: Scope of Judicial ReviewThe Court discussed the extent of judicial review, noting that while the sufficiency of the material cannot be questioned, the legitimacy of the inference drawn from such material is open to judicial review. The Court highlighted that the satisfaction must be based on relevant considerations related to the security of the State, and it is not immune from judicial scrutiny if it is based on extraneous or irrelevant grounds.Issue 3: Disclosure of Material and Claim of PrivilegeThe Court addressed whether the Government must disclose the material upon which the satisfaction was based. It concluded that while Article 74(2) protects the advice tendered by the Council of Ministers, it does not extend to the material on which the advice was based. However, this is subject to claims of privilege under Sections 123 and 124 of the Evidence Act. The Court emphasized that even if privilege is claimed, the Government must disclose the nature of the activities that led to the satisfaction, distinguishing between the nature of activities and the material supporting such activities.Issue 4: Allegation of Mala Fides and Extraneous ConsiderationsThe appellants argued that their dismissal was motivated by their involvement with the IBEA. The Court examined the Tribunal's findings, which concluded that the dismissal orders were based on activities prejudicial to the security of the State and unrelated to the appellants' association activities. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, finding no evidence of mala fides or extraneous considerations.SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSThe Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, affirming that the dismissal orders were not vitiated by mala fides or based on irrelevant considerations. The Court reiterated that:'The satisfaction of the President or the Governor under Article 311(2)(c) is subject to judicial review, limited to examining whether it was vitiated by mala fides or based on wholly extraneous or irrelevant grounds.'It emphasized that the Government is required to disclose the nature of the activities leading to dismissal, even if the material itself is privileged, to enable effective judicial review.In conclusion, the Court dismissed the appeals, finding no grounds to interfere with the Tribunal's decision, and maintained that the dismissal orders were justified based on considerations of state security.