Law Maker

M. Karunanidhi v. Union of India

Supreme Court of India, 20 February 1979, 5 judges, 1979 AIR 898, 1979 SCR (3) 254, 1979 SCC (3) 431

The Tamil Nadu Public Men (Criminal Misconduct) Act, 1973 was not repugnant to the Central anti-corruption laws, which therefore continued to apply, and a Chief Minister is a public servant under section 21(12) of the Penal Code.

Facts

The appellant, a former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, was alleged to have abused his official position in the purchase of wheat from Punjab for pecuniary advantage. After a CBI investigation and the Governor's sanction, he was charged before the Special Judge under sections 161, 468 and 471 of the Penal Code and section 5(2) read with section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Tamil Nadu Public Men (Criminal Misconduct) Act, 1973, passed with the President's assent, had been in force when the acts were allegedly committed but was repealed in 1977. His application for discharge under section 239 of the Code was rejected, and the Madras High Court refused to quash the proceedings but granted a certificate for leave to appeal. He appealed, arguing that the State Act had impliedly repealed the Central Acts and that a Chief Minister is not a public servant.

Questions before the Court

  1. Was the State Act, which had received the President's assent, repugnant to the Penal Code, the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act under Article 254(2), so that the Central provisions stood repealed and could not be used after the State Act's repeal?
  2. Is a Chief Minister a public servant within section 21(12) of the Indian Penal Code?

What the Court held

  • Repugnancy arises only where there is a clear and direct inconsistency between the Central and State Acts, the inconsistency is absolutely irreconcilable, and the two Acts collide so that obeying one means disobeying the other. The presumption is in favour of constitutionality and the onus lies on the person alleging repugnancy.
  • Where both statutes can operate in the same field without collision, or a statute in the same field creates distinct and separate offences, no repugnancy results. There is no repeal by implication unless the inconsistency appears on the face of the statutes.
  • The State Act created distinct offences with different ingredients and punishment, and itself required trial under the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act. Its amended section 29 made it additional to, not in derogation of, other laws. It was complementary, not repugnant, so the Central Acts were never repealed and the plea under Article 20 did not arise.
  • 'In the service of the Government' in section 21(12)(a) implies a master and servant relationship, but 'in the pay of the Government' is wider. A Chief Minister is appointed and dismissible by the Governor and so subordinate to him, and is paid a salary from Government funds for public duties. He is therefore a public servant. The appeals were dismissed.

Why it matters

The judgment collects the Indian, Federal Court and Australian authorities on repugnancy and states propositions for deciding when a State law is repugnant to a Central law under Article 254: direct and irreconcilable conflict is required, and laws creating distinct offences in the same field can stand together. It also holds that a Chief Minister or Minister is a public servant under section 21(12) of the Penal Code because he is in the pay of the Government.

In the Court's words

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

“It is well settled that the presumption is always in favour of the constitutionality of a statute and the onus lies on the person assailing the Act to prove that it is unconstitutional. Prima facie, there does not appear to us to be any inconsistency between the State Act and the Central Acts. Before any repugnancy can arise, the following conditions must be satisfied:- 1. That there is a clear and direct inconsistency between the Central Act and the State Act. 2. That such an inconsistency is absolutely irreconcilable.”
Fazal Ali, J.Page 15 of the judgment
“In the light of the propositions enunciated above, there can be no doubt that the State Act creates distinct and separate offences with different ingredients and different punishments and it does not in any way collide with the Central Acts. On the other hand, the State Act itself permits the Central Act, namely, the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act to come into its aid after an investigation is completed and a report is submitted by the Commissioner or the Additional Commissioner.”
Fazal Ali, J.Page 20 of the judgment
“We are not at all concerned in the instant case as to the circumstances under which the Governor can appoint or dismiss the Chief Minister. Once it is conceded that the Governor appoints the Chief Minister who is paid a salary according to a statute made by the legislature from the Government funds, the Chief Minister becomes a person in the pay of the Government so as to fall squarely within clause (12) of section 21 of the Penal Code.”
Fazal Ali, J.Page 25 of the judgment
“For the reasons given above, we are satisfied that a Chief Minister or a Minister is undoubtedly a public servant as defined in section 21(12) (a) of the Penal Code and the view taken by the High Court on this point was absolutely correct in law. The result is that all the contentions raised by Mr. Venu Gopal, counsel for the appellant fail and the appeals are dismissed.”
Fazal Ali, J.Page 28 of the judgment

Provisions interpreted

Case and bench

Parties
M. Karunanidhi v. Union of India
Case
Criminal Appeal Nos. 270-271 of 1977
Decided
20 February 1979
Bench
Fazalali, Syed Murtaza, Chandrachud, Y.V. (CJ), Bhagwati, P.N., Untwalia, N.L., Pathak, R.S.
Opinions
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Fazal Ali, J. No separate opinion appears in the file.

Questions on this case

1 question in live Law Maker papers mentions this case. Practise them with the landmark judgments questions.