Vanshika

Maheshwari

Subject: Constitutional Law

Class : BBA LLB 2nd Year Section-B

Enrollment number: 41651103518

State Of Karnataka vs Union Of India & Another on 8
November, 1977
Equivalent citations: 1978 AIR 68, 1978 SCR (2) 1
Bench: Beg, M. Hameedullah (Cj), Chandrachud, Y.V.
(Cj), Bhagwati, P.N., Untwalia, N.L. & Shingal, P.N.,
Singh, Jaswant & Kailasam, P.S.
PETITIONER:

STATE OF KARNATAKA

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

UNION OF INDIA & ANOTHER

DATE OF JUDGMENT 08/11/1977

BENCH:

BEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH (CJ)

BENCH:

BEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH (CJ)

CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. ((CJ)

BHAGWATI, P.N.

UNTWALIA, N.L.

SHINGAL, P.N.

SINGH, JASWANT

KAILASAM, P.S.
CASE ANALYSIS
In the case of State of Karnataka v Union of India J. Bhagwati emphasises on the point that
all the cases which are under Article 131 of the Constitution should only talk about the legal
rights of either of the parties, any kind of non-legal aspect will not be entertained. Thus, defining
the scope of Article 131 the hon’ble judge said “What has, therefore to be seen in order to
determine the applicability of Article 131 is whether there is any relational legal matter involving
a right, liberty, power or immunity qua the parties to the dispute. If there is, the suit would be
maintainable but not otherwise.”

In this above mentioned case, the main contention of the State Government was that under the
Commissions of Enquiry Act, the Central Government did not have the power to constitute any
inquiry commission which would look into the matters of a State legislation and executive. Thus,
the inquiry commission looked into the behavior of the Chief minister of the State along with the
other ministers, thus it was a question of Centre-State relationship. But the union Government
said that the Supreme Court will not have the power to look into this matter as there was
jurisdiction under Article 131 of the Constitution as it was a matter of the center and State
Government. But the Supreme Court said otherwise and said that the Government of India and
the Union will be the one and the same and that the ‘State’ would include the Government of the
State. J. Bhagawati also mentions that the State Government is nothing but the agent of a State
the words State and Government of a State can be used interchangeably. The case also tells us
that a legal right is that which are enforceable by an action in a court of law.

FACTS
In this case, the Central Government had issued a notification under section 3 of the
Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, to inquire into the conduct of certain Ministers of the State
Government of Karnataka (including the Chief Minister). The State Government challenged the
legality of this notification, mainly raising a constitutional issue connected with federalism. The
principal point raised was, that the scheme of the Constitution was that the State Cabinet was
collectively responsible to the State Legislative Assembly [article 164 (2) of the Constitution].
The Constitution did not contemplate a parallel overseeing of the State Cabinet (or its members)
by the Centre. In the end, the contention of the State Government failed. But the jurisdiction of
the Supreme Court (under article 131) to go into the above question was upheld. The point that is
relevant for the present purpose, is the fact that by a majority judgment, the proceeding was held
to be maintainable and it was specifically held, that in this context, the supposed distinction
between the State (an abstract entity) and the State Government (its concrete representative), was
immaterial.

ISSUES
On the pleadings of the parties, three issues were framed by this Court. These were :

(1) Is the suit maintainable ?

(2) Is the impugned notification ultra vires the powers of the Central Government under s. 3
of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 ?

(3)Even if the notification falls within sec. 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act is the
section itself unconstitutional ?

Arguments before the court:-

On Behalf of the plaintiff

 It was contended that the Central Government has no jurisdiction or authority to

Constitute the Commission of Inquiry in the purported exercise of its powers under the
Act.
 The action of the Central Government in appointing the Commission against the
Ministers of the State Government is destructive of the federal structure of the
Constitution and the scheme of distribution of powers between the Centre and the States
 Under the Cabinet system of government the Council of Ministers is responsible to the
Legislature for all its actions and the inquiry ordered by the Central Government against
the State Ministers, while they are in office would subvert the principle of collective
responsibility of Ministers to the Legislature
 By virtue of Art 194(3) it is the privilege of the Assembly (and not of any other body) to
appoint a Committee for inquiring into the conduct of any of its members, interpretation
of the 1952 Act in such a way as to empower the Central Government to appoint a
 Commission for inquiring into matters relating to any of the entries in List II of the
Seventh Schedule to the Constitution-would make itself ultra vires the provisions of Part
XI of the Constitution
 Since on the basis of the report the Central Government cannot take any action against
the Ministers of the State Government such a Commission cannot serve any useful
purpose

On Behalf of the defendant

 On the other hand, the defendant (Central Government) raised preliminary objections as
to the maintainability of the suit on the ground that the appointment of such a
Commission does - not affect any legal right of the State.
 Also that the Central Government is competent to constitute a Commission to inquire
into a definite matter of public importance, that, furthermore, its notification does not
cover any of the matters mentioned in the State Government's notification, namely, the
conduct of Ministers of the State Government.
 (Per majority Beg, C.J. Chandrachud, Bhagwati and Kailasam, JJ (Untwalia, Shinghal
and Jaswant Singh, JJ dissenting) The suit is maintainable.

Judgement
"India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States." The very first mandate of the first
article of our Constitution to which we owe allegiance thus prohibits, by necessary implication,
according to the plaintiff in the original suit now before us under Article 131 of the Constitution
of India, any constitutionally unjustifiable trespass by the" Union government upon the domain
of the powers of the States. The State of Karnataka, has, therefore sued, for a declaration., that a
notification dated23/05/1977 (hereinafter referred to as 'the central Notification') constituting a
Commission of Inquiry in purported exercise of its powers under S. 3of the Commissions of
Inquiry Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), is illegal and ultra vires. This declaration
is sought on one of two alternative grounds: firstly, that the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952,
does not "authorize the central government to constitute a Commission of Inquiry in regard to
matters falling exclusively within the sphere of the State's legislative and executive power"; and,
secondly, that if the provisions of the Act do cover the central government Notification, they are
ultra vires for contravention of "the terms of the Constitution as well as the federal structure
implicit and accepted as an inviolable basic feature of the Constitution". Consequentially, 'the
plaintiff seeks a perpetual injunction to restrain the respondents, the Union of India and Shri A.
N. Grover, the one man Commission of Inquiry into "charges of corruption, nepotism, favoritism
and misuse of governmental power against the Chief Minister and other Ministers of the State of
Karnataka", from acting under the central Government's notification. The plaintiff State's case
is: that, the Congress party was returned by the electors by a majority at an election held in the
State in 1972; that, the majority party in the Legislature elected Shri Devraj Urs as its leader who
then formed his government as required by Article 163 of the Constitution; that, the government
thus installed, by what must be deemed to be the will and decision of the State Legislature,
continues to enjoy the confidence of the Legislature and is in office; that, in the recent Lok Sabha
elections, the Congress party headed by Shri Devraj Urs achieved a resounding success by
having won 26 out of 28 seats so that the Janata party, which is in power at the Centre, must be
deemed to have been rejected by the electorate, But it is indirectly, through the appointment of a
central Commission of Inquiry, trying to discredit the Congress party and its leaders in the State
of Karnataka, and, thereby, interfering with the democratic machinery of control and supervision
of the government of the State provided by the Constitution itself. On 26/04/1977, the Union
Home Minister sent a letter to the Chief Minister of the State communicating the allegations
contained in a Memorandum submitted by certain members of the opposition party in the
Karnataka State Legislature and asked him to make his comments. The Chief Minister gave a
reply dated 13/05/1977, a copy of which was attached to the plaint. THE Chief Minister, in his
reply, complains that "Slanderous propaganda has been unleashed without any verification of the
truth or otherwise of the allegations or past history of most of the charges". He points out that
broadcasts and Press reports had given him an intimation of the allegations sent to him even
before they were received by him with the Home Minister's letter. THE Chief Minister said: "It
is reasonable to presume that the626object of this campaign of slander is mainly to tarnish the
image of the Congress party, my colleagues and myself in an effort to gain, if possible, power for
your party in the State immediately after your party was totally rejected by the electorate of the
State in the recent Lok Sabha elections" THE insinuation was that the whole object of
manipulated charges against the Chief Minister was to vilify him and his government and to
bring him down in the estimation of the public so as to destroy the support which the Congress
party had from the people of the State.