2008 (5) TMI 722 - SC - Indian Laws

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of the rule of perpetuity to a member of the Sikh Judicial Commission.
2. Validity of the Government of India's power under Section 72 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act to issue notifications.
3. Jurisdiction of the Central Government versus State Government in relation to the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925.
4. Tenure of the members of the Sikh Judicial Commission.
5. Validity of the notification dated 12.01.1999 on grounds of mala fide.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of the Rule of Perpetuity:
The primary issue was whether the rule of perpetuity applied to members of the Sikh Judicial Commission constituted under the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925. The court held that perpetuity in office is neither contemplated under the Act nor permitted by the constitutional scheme. The court emphasized that the tenure of public office should not be indefinite, aligning with the constitutional principles of equality before law and equal protection of law as laid down in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The court concluded that the members of the Commission do not hold office in perpetuity and that the Commission must be reconstituted from time to time.

2. Validity of the Government of India's Power under Section 72:
The court examined whether the Government of India had the authority under Section 72 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act to issue a notification substituting "State Government" with "Government of the State of Punjab" in various sections of the Sikh Gurdwaras Act. The court upheld the validity of the notification, stating that the Central Government, with the consent of the State of Haryana, merely nominated the State of Punjab to carry out the provisions of the Act. This action did not amount to delegation or sub-delegation of power but was a statutory function performed by the Central Government.

3. Jurisdiction of the Central Government versus State Government:
The court addressed the contention that the Central Government was the only competent authority to exercise jurisdiction over the Sikh Gurdwaras Act due to its inter-state nature. The court clarified that the Central Government's notification did not delegate its power but rather nominated the State of Punjab to perform certain functions. This nomination was within the Central Government's statutory powers and did not violate constitutional provisions.

4. Tenure of the Members of the Sikh Judicial Commission:
The court analyzed the tenure of the members of the Sikh Judicial Commission, noting that the Act did not specify a fixed period for holding office. However, the court emphasized that the Commission must be constituted from time to time, and the members cannot hold office indefinitely. The court highlighted that the power to appoint includes the power to remove, and the Commission's tenure should align with the constitutional principles of non-perpetuity in public office.

5. Validity of the Notification Dated 12.01.1999 on Grounds of Mala Fide:
The court considered the challenge to the notification dated 12.01.1999 on grounds of mala fide. The court found that the factual foundation for alleging mala fide actions by the Chief Minister of Punjab was not established. Moreover, the appellant had been reappointed as Chairman of the Commission by a subsequent notification, which used the term "Reconstitution of the Commission." The court held that the appellant could not challenge the notification on grounds of mala fide after benefiting from it and being reappointed.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed Civil Appeal Nos. 7024 of 2002 and 8171-8172 of 2003, while allowing Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 20803 of 2002 and Civil Appeal Nos. 5546 of 2003, 8169-8170 of 2003, and 3162-3165 of 2004. The court emphasized the need for periodic reconstitution of the Sikh Judicial Commission and upheld the Central Government's statutory powers in nominating the State of Punjab to perform functions under the Sikh Gurdwaras Act.

← Previous Next →