Sarwan Singh Lamba v. Union of India
Supreme Court of India, 12 May 1995, 5 judges, 1995 AIR 1729, 1995 SCC (4) 546, JT 1995 (5) 386
The Court held that the direction in S.P. Sampath Kumar to select tribunal members through a High Powered Selection Committee was advisory, upheld the appointments to the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, and imposed costs on the writ petitioners.
Facts
Three police Inspectors of Madhya Pradesh petitioned the High Court for quo warranto against the Vice-Chairman (R.P. Kapoor) and four Members of the State Administrative Tribunal. They argued that the appointments were not made through a High Powered Selection Committee as directed in S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India, and that the 1987 amendment to Section 6 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which required only consultation with the Chief Justice of India, did not comply with that direction. After inspecting government files produced long after the hearing, the High Court described the selection as murky, self-motivated and biased, held the appointments fraudulent and quashed them. The appointees, the Union of India and a Bar Association appealed. A three-judge bench referred the matters to a Constitution Bench.
Questions before the Court
- Was the direction in S.P. Sampath Kumar to set up a High Powered Selection Committee mandatory or advisory?
- Did failure to follow that direction vitiate the 1987 amendment of Section 6(7) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985?
- Were the appointments of the Vice-Chairman and Members of the State Administrative Tribunal fraudulent or otherwise invalid?
- Was the High Court right to draw inferences from government files without giving the appointees an opportunity to explain?
What the Court held
- Read carefully, the judgment in S.P. Sampath Kumar shows that the direction to set up a High Powered Selection Committee was advisory, not mandatory.
- Whether non-compliance vitiated the amendment was academic, because High Powered Selection Committees had in fact been set up at the Central and State levels, so the order of 5.5.1987 was complied with without amending Section 6(7).
- All the appointees were qualified and eligible, were appointed after consultation with the Chief Justice of India, and no law was violated. The High Court's finding that the appointments were fraudulent rested on suspicion and could not be upheld.
- The High Court violated natural justice by drawing adverse inferences from files called for after the hearing without giving the appointees a chance to explain.
- The appeals were allowed, the appointees allowed to resume office with arrears, and each writ petitioner was ordered to pay Rs. 15,000 as costs for abusing the process of the Court in the name of public interest.
Why it matters
The judgment clarifies the effect of S.P. Sampath Kumar on appointments to administrative tribunals, treating its direction for a High Powered Selection Committee as advisory and accepting consultation with the Chief Justice of India together with committees in practice. It also warns courts against drawing adverse inferences from files without hearing the persons affected, and imposes exemplary costs on petitioners who used public interest litigation for personal ends.
In the Court's words
Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.
“The judgment, carefully read, clearly indicates that the direction for setting up a High Powered Selection Committee was merely advisory and not mandatory in character. The Act originally provided that the judicial members were to be appointed after consultation with the Chief Justice of India. Neither Bhagwati,J. nor Misra, J. has found fault with it.”
“Normally even an obiter dictum is expected to be obeyed and followed. In our view further discussion would be purely academic for the simple reason that without amending Section 6(7) the dicta of the Court has in fact been made effective by the appointment of High Powered Selection Committees both at the Central level as well as the State levels with minor modifications.”
“As has been pointed out earlier long after the hearing had concluded the Court had called for the files which were produced on 29.7.1993. The Court inspected the files and has drawn its own conclusions on the basis of the notings without giving the parties, the appellants, against whom the inferences were drawn any opportunity to explain the same. This was clearly in violation of the basic rule of natural justice.”
“We are satisfied beyond any manner of doubt that the petitions filed by the three police Inspectors were, to say the least, motivated with a view to deriving personal benefits and not in public interest. Their idea was to paralyse the working of the Tribunal and benefit from the delay at the cost of other litigants.”
Provisions interpreted
- Section 6(7), Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (as amended by Act 51 of 1987)
Related judgments
- Explains S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India (1986)“The judgment, carefully read, clearly indicates that the direction for setting up a High Powered Selection Committee was merely advisory and not mandatory in character.” (page 6)
Case and bench
- Parties
- Sarwan Singh Lamba v. Union of India
- Case
- Civil Appeal No. 5061 of 1993, with Civil Appeal Nos. 5062 of 1993, 5511 of 1995 and 7486 of 1993
- Decided
- 12 May 1995
- Bench
- A.M. Ahmadi (CJ), N.P. Singh, Jagdish Saran Verma, P.B. Sawant, B.P. Jeevan Reddy
- Opinions
- Judgment delivered by Ahmadi, CJI for a bench of five judges. 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.