R. R. Dalavai v. State of Tamil Nadu

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: A. N. Ray
M. H. Beg
Jaswant Singh
Judgment Date: 1976-05-07
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal allowed; the Madras High Court's decision is set aside. A mandamus directs the State to forbear from implementing the pension scheme and to refund moneys paid. Costs awarded to the appellant.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

R. R. Dalavai

Respondents

State of Tamil Nadu

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Respondents

• A. V. Rangam
• Miss A. Subhashini

Case Synopsis & Summary

This case concerns the constitutional validity of a pension scheme announced by the Tamil Nadu government for anti-Hindi agitators, funded from the state's Consolidated Fund. The appellant challenged the government's power to grant pensions and to make payments via an executive order, arguing that such provision violates Article 351 of the Constitution, which envisions promoting Hindi as a unifying medium for the diverse culture of India. The Madras High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the scheme did not violate Article 351 and that appropriation Act No. 38 of 1974 supplied the necessary sanctions, deeming the payments legal. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the pension scheme embodies a vice of disintegration and furthers fissiparous tendencies; provoking emotions against Hindi or any language is anti-national and anti-democratic and must be checked at the outset. It found no legislative sanction for the pension scheme and held that government expenditures cannot be authorized by executive order; the budget sanction was likewise unconstitutional. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment, issued a mandamus directing the State to refrain from implementing the scheme, and ordered refunds of monies already paid, with costs awarded to the appellant.

Provisions of Law Cited

Constitution of India, Article 351Appropriation Act No. 38 of 1974

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Directive Principles of State Policy (Article 351)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant contends that Article 351 requires promotion of Hindi; the pension scheme for anti-Hindi agitators violates the directive, lacks legislative sanction, and cannot be financed by executive order. The Appropriation Act and the Budget sanction cannot justify such expenditure, and the scheme is unconstitutional, with funds improperly drawn from the Consolidated Fund.

Contentions of Respondents

The High Court held that the State Legislature controls the purse and that the agitators fought for a cause; the pension, being non-destructive of the Directive Principles, would not violate Article 351. The Appropriation Act of 1974 provides a funding basis, and the scheme reflects legislative intent to ameliorate those deemed deserving; the writ petition should not have been allowed.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

_f_ ### • 601 R. R, DALAVAI _v._ STATE OF TAMIL NADU _May_ 7, 1976 [A. N. RAY, C.J., M. H. BEG AND JASWANT SINGH, JJ.] _**Pension**_ _**scheme**_ _**to anti-Hindi agitators-Constitutidnal validity of-Conati-**_ _tution of India,_ _Article_ 351. _Budget_ _sanction_ _through_ _Appropriation_ _Act_ 38 _ilf_ 1974 _for_ _payment_ _of_ _pen·_ _**sion**_ _**to**_ _**anti-Hindi**_ _**al!itators**_ _**by**_ _**an**_ _**executive order**_ _**is**_ _**unconslitutional-Mad1as**_ _Budget_ _Manual._ The appellant challenged the constitutional validity of the pebsion scheme of the ~dent.State by "1!ich the anti.Hindi agitators were to be paid pension from the Consolidated FUnd of the State. The High Court dismissed the writ holding that (!) the spirit and letter of Art. 351 was not violated and (2) in view of the Appropriation Act 38 of 1974, the paym,m was not illegal. Allowing the appeal by special leave, the Court .WELD: (!) The pension scheme formulated by the Tamil Nadu Govern· **meot contains** **the -vice** **of** **disintegration** **and** **,fomenting fissiparous tendencies.** If any State will be eni'\ged in exicting emotion against Hindl or any other languag_e, such provocation has to be nipped in the bUd becanse these are anti. national and anti-democratic tendencies. [602C-DJ (2) There is no legislative sanction ih the instant case for such pension **scheme.** **1be** **Government by** **an** **executive** **order** **could not authorise payment** of pension scheme. The pension scheme is unconstitutiona) and the Budget **sanction** **is** **equally unconstitutional. [6020-EJ** CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1116 of 1975. Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 21st January, 1975 of the High Court of Madras at Madras in Writ Petition No. 3962 of 1972. _Petitioner_ _in_ _person;_ for the Appella'at. _A. V. Rangam and (Miss)_ _A._ _Subhashini;_ for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAY, CJ. This 'dppeal is by special leave from the judgment dated G 21 January, 1975 of the Madras High Court. The appellant made an application under Article 226 challenging the, power of the GovernmetM of Tamil Nadu to grant of pension to Anti-Hindi agitators. The appellant further challenged the power of the State to make payment from the Consolidatect Fund of the State Exchequer. **H** Article 351 of the Constitution says that it shall be the duty of the Union Government to promote the spread of the Hindi language to **A** B #### c **D** E F 602 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1976] SUPPLEMENTARY A drvclop so that it may serve as a medium of expression for all the elements of the c~mposite culture of our country. The appellant contended that the sprrit and letter of Article 351 is violated by the Pension Scheme of the Tamil Nadu State. The appellant said that the agitators who brought about violence broke the law and were honoured by the pension scheme of the State. B The High Court said that the State Legislature has control over #### c purse and that in the view of the State Legislature the agitators against Hindi fought for a cause and, therefore, those who are eligible should be granted pension. The High Court found tLat if a scheme is provided which is not destructive of the Directive Principles but aimed at ameliorating those who the legislature thought deserve that treatment Article 351 was not violated. The High Court found that because of Appropriation Act No. 38 of 1974 it could not be said that payment was illegal. In our opinion the pension scheme formulated by the Tumil Nadu Government c<Yntains the vice of disintegration and fomenting fissiparous tendencies. If any State will be engaged in exciting emotion against D Hindi or any other language such provocation has to be nipped in the bud because these are anti-national and anti-democratic tendencies. The Madras Budget Manual 4th Edition was referred to by the appellant. The appropriation in the present case shows that a fund was kept apart to meet the pension scheme. There is no legislative sanction for such pension scheme. The Government by a [1] n executive E order could not authorise payment of pensiou scheme. The appellant is right in his contention that the pension scheme is unconstitutional and the budget sanction is equally unconstitutional. For these reasons the judgment of the High Court is set aside. ## ' # ' ### • " \ F A _mandamus_ will go directing the responde',1t to forbear from implementing the pension scheme. The State will be competent to claim refund of moneys illegally and unconstitutionally paid. The appellant is entitled to costs to be paid by the State. S.R. _Appeal_ _allowed_