Law Maker

E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu

Supreme Court of India · 23 November 1973 · 5 judges · 1974 AIR 555; 1974 SCR (2) 348; 1974 SCC (4) 3

The Court dismissed an IAS officer's challenge to his transfer from the post of Chief Secretary, Tamil Nadu; the three-judge opinion held that Articles 14 and 16 strike at arbitrariness, but arbitrariness and mala fides were not proved.

Facts

The petitioner, a selection grade IAS officer of the Tamil Nadu cadre, was promoted and posted 'to act' as Chief Secretary in November 1969. In April 1971 he was appointed Deputy Chairman of the State Planning Commission, a temporary post created in the grade of Chief Secretary; he did not join and went on leave. On return in June 1972 he was again posted as Deputy Chairman, and by an order of 27 June 1972 was transferred as Officer on Special Duty, a temporary post in the grade of Chief Secretary. Sabanayagam, his junior, was promoted and confirmed as Chief Secretary. The petitioner challenged the transfer under Article 32 as contrary to the IAS Cadre and Pay Rules, violative of Articles 14 and 16 because the new posts were inferior, and mala fide on the part of the Chief Minister.

Questions before the Court

  1. Was the petitioner appointed substantively to the post of Chief Secretary?
  2. Did the transfer violate Rule 4(2) of the IAS (Cadre) Rules and Rule 9(1) of the IAS (Pay) Rules, 1954, and is such a violation enforceable under Article 32?
  3. Was the transfer, with the promotion and confirmation of a junior as Chief Secretary, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16?
  4. Was the transfer made in mala fide exercise of power?

What the Court held

  • The petitioner was promoted as Chief Secretary only in an acting or officiating capacity, not substantively.
  • Per the three-judge opinion, a declaration of equivalence under Rule 9(1) of the IAS (Pay) Rules is a condition precedent. The State gave the new posts a grade according to who was appointed, so Rule 9(1) was not complied with; but a mere breach of the rule is not a breach of a fundamental right remediable under Article 32.
  • Per the three-judge opinion, Article 16 is a species of Article 14. Equality is antithetic to arbitrariness; an arbitrary act is unequal and violates Article 14, and Article 16 in public employment. Mala fide exercise of power is also hit by these Articles, and an officiating officer may invoke them.
  • The petitioner did not establish on the record that the posts of Deputy Chairman and Officer on Special Duty were inferior to that of Chief Secretary, so the Articles 14 and 16 challenge failed. Ray, CJ and Palekar, J. held the posts equal in status.
  • All five Judges held that mala fides were not proved. The burden of proving them is heavy, and the Court will be slow to draw inferences from incomplete facts where grave imputations are made against the holder of a high office. The petition was dismissed.

Why it matters

The three-judge opinion of Bhagwati, J. holds that equality is opposed to arbitrariness, and arbitrary State action is by itself unequal and violates Articles 14 and 16. It treats Article 16 as an instance of Article 14, brings mala fide exercise of power within both, and states the heavy burden on a person alleging mala fides against high authorities.

In the Court's words

Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.

“From a positivistic point of view, equality is antithetic to arbitrariness. In fact equality and arbitrariness are sworn enemies; one belongs to the rule of law in a republic while the other, to the whim and caprice of an absolute monarch. Where an act is arbitrary it is implicit in it that it is unequal both according to political logic and constitutional law and is therefore violative of Art. 14, and if it affects any matter relating to public employment, it is also violative of Art. 16.”
Bhagwati, J.Page 38 of the judgment
“Even if a public servant is in an officiating position, he can complain of violation of Arts. 14 and 16 if he has been. arbitrarily or unfairly treated or subjected to mala fide exercise of. power by the State machine.”
Bhagwati, J.Page 38 of the judgment
“But we cannot in this petition under Art. 32 give relief to the petitioner by striking down his appointment to the post of Officer on Special Duty, as mere violation of r. 9, sub-r. (1) does not involve infringement of any fundamental right.”
Bhagwati, J.Page 37 of the judgment
“Secondly, we must not also overlook that the burden of establishing mala fides in very heavy on the person who alleges it. the allegations of mala fides are often more easily made than proved, and the very seriousness of such allegations demands proof of a high order of credibility.”
Bhagwati, J.Page 41 of the judgment

Provisions interpreted

Related judgments

Case and bench

Parties
E. P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu
Case
Writ Petition No. 284 of 1972
Decided
23 November 1973
Bench
Ray, A.N. (CJ), Palekar, D.G., Chandrachud, Y.V., Bhagwati, P.N., Krishnaiyer, V.R.
Opinions
Unanimous in dismissing the petition, with two judgments. Ray, CJ delivered the judgment for himself and Palekar, J.; Bhagwati, J. delivered a separate judgment for himself, Chandrachud and Krishna Iyer, JJ., agreeing with the final conclusion but with different reasoning.

Questions on this case

5 questions in live Law Maker papers mention this case. Practise them with the landmark judgments questions.