1959 (3) TMI 77 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Maintainability of petitions under Article 32.
2. Adequate alternative legal remedy.
3. Violation of the right to property by private individuals.
4. Infringement of fundamental rights by the impugned Act.
5. Declaratory legislation and its impact.
6. Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to entertain petitions involving disputed questions of fact.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of petitions under Article 32:
The primary issue raised was whether the petitions under Article 32 were maintainable. The respondents argued that the petitions were not maintainable because the petitioners had an adequate remedy through the pauper suit filed by one of the respondents. However, the Court held that Article 32 itself is a guaranteed right and that the existence of an alternative legal remedy does not bar the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32. The Court emphasized that it is constituted as the protector and guarantor of fundamental rights and cannot refuse to entertain applications seeking protection against infringement of such rights.

2. Adequate alternative legal remedy:
The respondents contended that the petitioners had an adequate legal remedy and should not seek a writ of Mandamus. The Court rejected this argument, citing its earlier decision in Rashid Ahmed v. Municipal Board, Kairana, which stated that the existence of an adequate legal remedy is a consideration but does not limit the powers under Article 32. The Court reiterated that the right to move the Supreme Court for enforcement of fundamental rights is itself a guaranteed right.

3. Violation of the right to property by private individuals:
The respondents argued that the violation of the right to property by private individuals is not within the purview of Article 19(1)(f) or Article 31(1) and that the petitioners should seek remedy under ordinary law. The Court distinguished this case from P. D. Shamdasani v. Central Bank of India Ltd., noting that the present petitions were against the impugned Act passed by the Madras Legislature, which falls within the definition of "State" under Article 12. The Court held that the petitions were primarily against the action of the State and were maintainable under Article 32.

4. Infringement of fundamental rights by the impugned Act:
The Court examined whether the impugned Act infringed the petitioners' fundamental rights. It was argued that the Act, by its terms, took away or abridged the petitioners' rights without any further overt act. The Court held that the infringement was complete upon the passing of the Act, and the petitioners were entitled to seek a remedy under Article 32. The Court noted that the petitioners' right to hold and dispose of their properties as sthanam properties had been injured by the action of the Legislature.

5. Declaratory legislation and its impact:
The respondents argued that the impugned Act was merely declaratory and did not require any action by the State, thus not warranting a writ under Article 32. The Court disagreed, stating that its powers under Article 32 are wide enough to make even a declaratory order where appropriate. The Court cited previous cases, such as Rashid Ahmed v. Municipal Board, Kairana, and T. C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa, to support its view that it could issue orders, writs, or directions necessary for the enforcement of fundamental rights.

6. Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to entertain petitions involving disputed questions of fact:
The respondents contended that the Court should not entertain petitions involving disputed questions of fact. The Court rejected this argument, stating that it is bound to entertain petitions under Article 32 and decide them on merits. The Court emphasized that it would be failing in its duty as the custodian of fundamental rights if it declined to entertain such petitions. The Court noted that questions of fact can often be dealt with on affidavits and that it had previously decided cases involving disputed facts on affidavits, such as in Chiranjitlal Chowdhuri v. The Union of India and Kathi Raning Rawat v. The State of Saurashtra.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court overruled the preliminary objections to the maintainability of the petitions and ordered that the applications be heard on merits. The Court held that the petitions were maintainable under Article 32, as they involved the infringement of fundamental rights by the impugned Act passed by the Madras Legislature. The respondents were directed to pay one set of costs for the hearing of the preliminary objection to the petitioners.