1971 (1) TMI 108 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether President himself did not determine the question relating to the age of the respondent because he surrendered his judgment to the Chief Justice of India or that he was persuaded to reach his conclusion only because the Home Minister and the Prime Minister had countersigned the notation made by the Secretary of the Ministry of Home Affairs? Held that - Appeal allowed. We do not think that the President had heard any evidence or received any representation from one side behind the back of the other. If he had done so the question whether any representation was made which worked to the prejudice of the respondent would arise. The Court will not then consider the question whether the representation had in fact worked to his prejudice. A reasonable possibility may be sufficient. In the present case no evidence was placed before the President or considered by him which was not disclosed to the respondent. This Court will not sit in appeal over the judgment of the President, nor will the, Courts determine the weight which should be attached to the evidence. Appreciation of evidence is entirely left to the President and it is not for the Courts to hold that on the evidence placed before the President on which the conclusion is founded, if they were called upon to decide the case they would have reached some other conclusion.

Issues Involved:
1. Determination of the respondent's true date of birth.
2. Legality and validity of the President's decision under Article 217(3) of the Constitution.
3. Compliance with principles of natural justice.
4. Role and influence of the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Prime Minister in the President's decision.
5. Right to personal hearing before the President.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Determination of the respondent's true date of birth:
The respondent, a High Court Judge, declared his date of birth as December 27, 1904, which was contested by the Government of India based on his matriculation certificate showing the date as December 27, 1901. The President, after consultation with the Chief Justice of India and considering all evidence, determined the date of birth as December 27, 1901. The respondent's evidence, including an almanac and horoscope, was found insufficient to prove his claim.

2. Legality and validity of the President's decision under Article 217(3) of the Constitution:
Article 217(3) was amended to include that any question regarding the age of a High Court Judge shall be decided by the President after consultation with the Chief Justice of India, and the decision shall be final. The Supreme Court upheld the President's decision, stating that the President acted on the advice of the Chief Justice and did not surrender his judgment. The procedure followed complied with constitutional requirements, and the decision was not influenced by the Ministry of Home Affairs or the Prime Minister.

3. Compliance with principles of natural justice:
The respondent argued that the decision was made without granting him an oral hearing, which he claimed was necessary for fair play and natural justice. The Supreme Court held that Article 217(3) does not guarantee a right to personal hearing and that the President had given ample opportunities for the respondent to make representations and submit evidence. The Court emphasized that a personal hearing is not mandatory unless deemed necessary by the President.

4. Role and influence of the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Prime Minister in the President's decision:
The respondent contended that the President's decision was influenced by the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Prime Minister. The Supreme Court found no evidence to support this claim, noting that the President acted independently based on the advice of the Chief Justice of India. Any procedural irregularities by the Ministry did not vitiate the President's decision.

5. Right to personal hearing before the President:
The respondent requested an oral hearing, which was not granted. The Supreme Court ruled that the President's discretion in deciding whether to grant a personal hearing is not subject to judicial review unless it results in a denial of natural justice. The Court concluded that the President's decision-making process, which included multiple opportunities for the respondent to present his case, was fair and just.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, upholding the President's decision regarding the respondent's date of birth and confirming that the procedures followed were in compliance with constitutional and natural justice principles. The Court emphasized the importance of maintaining judicial independence and recommended that the President's Secretariat handle such matters directly without interposition from other authorities. No costs were awarded.

← Previous Next →