Civil Writ - Public Employment – Communal Reservation – Article 16 of the Constitution – Communal G.O. Declared Void – The petitioner, a qualified Brahmin advocate, was denied selection for the post of District Munsif under a communal reservation scheme that allocated posts to specific castes and communities – The Court held that while Article 16(4) allows reservation for backward classes, the reservation of posts for Muslims, Christians, Non-Brahmin Hindus and Brahmins who are not identified as backward classes is unconstitutional – Held: The Communal G.O. is inconsistent with Article 16(1) and (2) and is hence void [Paras 3-4].

Equality – Caste and Religious Discrimination – Reservation not Based on Backwardness – The Court emphasized that Article 16(4) cannot be used to reserve posts for caste or religious groups unless they are shown to be backward classes inadequately represented – Held: The petitioner’s exclusion based solely on caste was discriminatory and violated his fundamental rights under Article 16(1) and (2) [Para 4].

Relief – Prospective Application – Appointments Already Made Not Cancelled – The Court took note that many candidates had already taken charge and declined to cancel their appointments – However, it directed the petitioner’s application to be considered afresh on merit, disregarding the unconstitutional communal rotation – Held: Petitioner’s application to be decided without reference to communal G.O. – Costs awarded to petitioner [Para 5].

Civil Writ - Admissions Policy – Community Quotas – Articles 29(2), 15(1), 13 – Communal G.O. Struck Down – Petitions under Article 226 assailed the Madras Government’s communal proportions for college admissions – Held: Article 29(2) guarantees an individual citizen’s right not to be denied admission to State-maintained/aided institutions on grounds only of religion, race, caste, language – The Communal G.O. denies admission solely on such grounds and is void under Article 13 – Appeals dismissed [Paras 8–15].

Fundamental Rights vs. Directive Principles – Articles 29(2), 46, 37, 32 – Directive Principles Cannot Override Fundamental Rights – State’s reliance on Article 46 (promotion of weaker sections/Scheduled Castes & Tribes) rejected – Part IV principles, though fundamental in governance, are non-justiciable (Art. 37) and must conform to Part III; they cannot abridge enforceable Fundamental Rights vindicable under Article 32/226 [Para 10].

Art. 16(4) vs. Education Admissions – Constitutional Design – Presence of explicit enabling clause for reservation in public employment (Art. 16(4)) and its omission in Art. 29(2) is significant – Constitution did not contemplate communal considerations in admissions to State institutions; Art. 29(2) controls – Comparison underscores invalidity of the Communal G.O. in education [Para 12].

Merit and “Grounds Only” Test – Application to Facts – Where candidates (e.g., Srinivasan) had higher marks yet were excluded from seats reserved for other communities, denial rests only on caste/religion – Such exclusion infringes Art. 29(2) notwithstanding internal caps for particular communities [Paras 13–14].

Maintainability – Non-application Caveat – One petitioner had not actually applied; Court proceeded in the peculiar circumstances (seat kept pending), but cautioned this should not be taken as approval for future non-applicant petitions under Art. 29(2) [Para 6].

Decision – Communal G.O. declared inconsistent with Art. 29(2) and void under Art. 13 – High Court’s writs affirmed – State’s appeals dismissed with costs [Paras 15–16].

Labour Law - Industrial Tribunal – Constitution and Jurisdiction – Sections 7 and 8 of the Industrial Disputes Act – Award Held Without Jurisdiction – Where one member of the Tribunal was deputed elsewhere and became unavailable – Government failed to either reconstitute the Tribunal or issue a fresh notification under Section 7 – Held: Two remaining members could not legally function as the Tribunal – Interim awards passed during this period are void – Rule 12 (then in force) requiring party consent further indicated the need for proper constitution – Awards made and signed only by two members during that period lacked jurisdiction [Paras 4–10, 15, 18].

Tribunal Member Resuming Duties – Need for Fresh Appointment – Section 8 and Rule 5 – Resumption without Notification Invalid – Mr. Chandrasekhara Aiyar, having ceased to be available, could not resume his seat without a formal reappointment – No new notification was issued under Section 7 – Held: Tribunal of three ceased to exist and resumption by the third member without reappointment was invalid – Final award signed by all three members after such irregularity was also without jurisdiction [Paras 13–14].

Quorum and Composition – No Provision in Section 7 for Reduced Bench – Unlike Sections 5 and 6 which allow functioning with quorum, Section 7 requires joint functioning of all members – Absence of express provision for reduced bench implies that all members must sit and hear together – Functioning with only two members without proper reconstitution was not permitted [Paras 5, 8, 54–55].

Notification Requirement – Rule 5 of 1949 Rules – Proper Constitution Demands Notification – Original Tribunal was constituted via notification naming all three members – Any change in number or composition of members required fresh notification – Government’s internal intention to allow two members to proceed without such notification had no legal effect – Held: The two-member body was not a legally constituted Tribunal [Paras 6–7, 63–64].

Final Award and Joint Hearing – Section 15 and 16 – Joint Hearing and Deliberation Required – All members must hear the matter before signing the award – Mr. Aiyar did not participate in the entire hearing and hence could not validly sign – Signature was not surplusage – Full award held invalid due to this fundamental procedural defect [Paras 13–14, 16].

Government Discretion under Section 8 – Not Absolute – Action Must Be Formal – Although Government had discretion not to fill a vacancy, it could not keep that decision in abeyance – No implied right to allow remaining members to proceed in absence of notification – Section 8 does not confer authority to act without proper reconstitution – All such proceedings held void [Paras 7–10, 17, 53–56].

Decision – Tribunal Not Properly Constituted – Awards Void – Supreme Court held that due to lack of proper reconstitution under Section 7 and irregular resumption of duties by Mr. Aiyar without appointment, all interim and final awards passed by the Tribunal were without jurisdiction and hence void [Paras 18, 65].

Cognizance of Offence – Stage of Taking Cognizance – Section 190 CrPC – Distinction between police investigation and initiation of proceedings – Held: Cognizance is taken when the Magistrate applies his judicial mind for proceeding under Chapter XV CrPC, not when issuing warrants during investigation – Magistrate in present case took cognizance only on 25th March 1949 when issuing notice under Section 190 CrPC [Paras 3-7, 10-11].

Issuance of Warrant – Section 3, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 – Offences under Sections 161 and 165 IPC deemed cognizable – Police required order of Magistrate for arrest during investigation – Such warrant does not amount to cognizance under Section 190 CrPC – Cognizance arises only after judicial proceedings commence [Paras 5-7].

Sanction for Prosecution – Section 197 CrPC and Section 6 Prevention of Corruption Act – No court shall take cognizance against a public servant without sanction – In present case, sanction of Provincial and Central Governments obtained prior to 25th March 1949 – Magistrate took cognizance only thereafter – Proceedings held valid – Argument that sanction was necessary at arrest stage rejected [Paras 7, 11].

Interpretation of Case Law – Observations in Emperor v. Sourindra Mohan Chuckerbutty ILR 37 Cal 412 distinguished – Court approved reasoning in Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs v. Abani Kumar Banerjee, AIR 1950 Cal 437, that judicial application of mind for investigation purposes (e.g. Section 156(3) CrPC) does not amount to cognizance [Paras 8-10].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Cognizance taken only after valid sanction – Prosecution lawful and not vitiated [Para 12].

Article 32 Writs – Special Tribunal Convictions – Finality and Maintainability – Sections 417, 430 CrPC – Part III enforcement via habeas corpus/certiorari/prohibition – Where convictions and sentences have been affirmed by the competent appellate court prior to 26/01/1950, the principle of finality applies – Supreme Court will not, in Article 32, re-open or indirectly set aside such judgments; detention is “according to procedure established by law” – Certiorari/prohibition inappropriate against a court not then subordinate; habeas corpus does not lie to impeach final appellate affirmation save in exceptional cases – Petitions dismissed [Paras 23, 25–33, 35].

Jurisdiction of Special Tribunal – Transfer/Allocation by Civil Administrator – Identification of cases by charge-sheet numbers – Reference to charge-sheet numbers sufficient to particularize cases; however, no specific written order traced for charge-sheet No. 14(2) dated 20/07/1949 affecting Case No. 17 – Prima facie irregularity noted but no relief granted in Article 32 in view of appellate finality; executive clemency invited to consider peculiar facts of A- Elladu [Paras 21–22, 34].

Fair Trial – Right to Counsel – Section 340 CrPC (Hyderabad §271) – Non-assignment of counsel in capital cases – Desirability vs. legal necessity – No universal rule that absence of counsel per se vitiates trial; appellate/revisional court may interfere if lack of legal aid renders trial unfair – On facts, opportunities existed; some accused declined counsel even before High Court; nonetheless, Court emphasizes tribunals should proactively assign counsel in capital cases [Paras 14–20].

Misjoinder of Charges – Section 234 CrPC – Multiple offences including murder/rioting and carrying unlicensed firearms – Distinction between want of jurisdiction and illegality/irregularity – Even assuming procedural defect, it does not render trial coram non judice; corrective remedy lies in appeal/revision; appellate court having affirmed, writ relief unavailable under Article 32 – Subramania Iyer distinguished; later Privy Council decisions noted [Para 4].

Mode of Execution of Death Sentence – Hyderabad CPC §§311 & Form 29; Special Tribunal Regulations (amendment 30/10/1949) – Retrospective operation – Provision specifying execution “by hanging” applies to unexecuted sentences and governs present case; in any event, High Court could impose death by hanging under amended Regulation; contention rejected [Paras 5–8].

Approval/Confirmation (“Manzuri”) vs. “Tashih” – Hyderabad CPC §§20, 302, 307–309 – Regulatory substitution (tausiq/confirmation) and vesting in Military Governor – “Manzuri” not confined to monarch; context denotes confirmation – Regulatory scheme simplified and replaced prior approval/ratification channels; contention that Nizam’s personal assent indispensable rejected [Paras 9–13].

Habeas Corpus – Scope where conviction affirmed on appeal – English authorities reviewed – Limited room to go behind convictions on affidavits; even if trial-court jurisdictional defect arguendo assumed, appellate affirmation by competent court is not a nullity – Finality principle reiterated; no retrospective operation of Constitution to unsettle pre-26/01/1950 final judgments [Paras 26–33].

Decision – All six petitions (Article 32 and connected SLPs) dismissed – No relief under Article 32; observations inviting executive consideration for A– Elladu (Case No. 17) noted [Paras 34–35].

Execution—Scaling down—Order 21 Rule 2 CPC—Section 47 CPC—Sections 7, 8, 14, 19, Agriculturists’ Relief Act—Appeal Allowed—Decree against agriculturist co-debtors can be scaled down without benefiting non-agriculturist co-debtor—Executing court cannot, under guise of interpretation, rewrite decree or record full satisfaction on payments referable only to scaled-down liability of agriculturists—High Court’s contrary approach set aside [Paras 1–3, 6–8, 10–12].

Executing Court’s Limits – Interpretation vs. Alteration – Section 47 CPC – Held: Execution court’s duty is to enforce the decree as drawn; it may construe but cannot make a new decree by treating satisfaction against agriculturists as discharge of the entire mortgage vis-à-vis a non-agriculturist whose liability stands intact under the appellate decree [Paras 7–8, 12].

Agriculturists’ Relief Act – Beneficiaries and Splitting of Debt – Sections 7, 8, 14, 19 – Statutory scheme permits scaling down “notwithstanding any…decree of court,” but relief is confined to “agriculturists”; where some debtors are agriculturists and others are not, the decree can validly be split—reduced as to agriculturists and kept intact as to non-agriculturists—consistent with Section 14 indicating separability within Hindu family debts [Paras 9–11].

Indivisibility of Mortgage Decree – Exceptions – Transfer of Property principles vs. Special Statute – General rule of unity and indivisibility yields where integrity is disrupted or a special statute (Relief Act) intervenes—here the appellate decree itself, and subsequent execution settlements, proceed on split liabilities; non-agriculturist D1 cannot invoke “indivisibility” to ride on agriculturists’ scaling down [Paras 9–12].

Purchaser Cases Distinguished – Relief to Non-Agriculturist Purchasers is Incidental to Purchase, Not Applicable to Co-Debtor – Decisions granting a non-agriculturist purchaser the incidental benefit of a scaled-down burden do not apply where the claimant is himself a mortgagor/judgment-debtor; here no purchaser of equity of redemption—benefit cannot be claimed indirectly by a non-agriculturist co-debtor [Paras 11–12].

Form of Decree and Execution Arrangements – Reading Decree as a Whole – Although decree could have more clearly confined discharge to agriculturists’ shares upon their payment, its plain implication, reinforced by execution-stage settlements and releases, is a split security and debt; full satisfaction could not be entered on payments referable to agriculturists alone [Paras 11–12].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – High Court’s order set aside; District Judge’s order restored; no order as to costs [Para 12].

Execution of Mortgage Decree – Scaling Down vis-à-vis Non-Agriculturist Co-Debtor – Section 47 & Order 21 Rule 2 CPC – Sections 7, 8, 14, 19 of the Madras Agriculturists’ Relief Act – Appeal Allowed – Decree validly split: scaled down only for agriculturist defendants (D2–D7); non-agriculturist D1 remained liable for full decretal amount – Payments satisfying the scaled-down share cannot be treated as “full satisfaction” of the entire decree nor as exonerating D1 or the whole security – High Court’s contrary view erroneous [Paras 2–6, 8–13, 14–15].

Executing Court’s Limits – Interpretation vs. Re-drafting – Section 47 CPC – Execution court must enforce the decree as drawn – It may construe but cannot rewrite by invoking “indivisibility” to confer indirect relief under the Act upon a non-agriculturist who was expressly denied such relief by the appellate decree [Paras 7–9].

Indivisibility of Mortgage – Special Statute Carve-out – General unity of mortgage/security yields where integrity is disrupted or where a special statute intervenes – The 1938 Act specifically authorizes scaling down “notwithstanding any … decree of court,” but confines the benefit to “agriculturists”; hence permissible to reduce liability only for agriculturists while keeping the decree intact against non-agriculturists [Paras 10–11].

Purchaser Cases Distinguished – Incidental Benefit to Purchaser ≠ Benefit to Co-Debtor – Authorities granting a non-agriculturist purchaser the incidental benefit of a scaled-down burden (as an incident of purchase) do not apply where the claimant is himself a mortgagor/judgment-debtor seeking to ride on his co-debtors’ relief – Present case involves no purchaser; ratio in those cases inapplicable [Paras 11–12].

Form and Implication of Decree – Reading as a Whole – Although the decree could have more clearly earmarked discharge of only agriculturists’ shares upon their payment, its plain implication (reinforced by execution-stage settlements and releases) is a split security and debt; therefore full satisfaction could not be entered on payments referable to agriculturists alone [Paras 13–14].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Order of the High Court set aside – Order of the District Judge restored – No order as to costs [Paras 14–15].

Appellate – Additional Evidence – Order 41 Rule 27 CPC – Improper Exercise of Discretion – The appellate court must itself “require” additional evidence due to an inherent lacuna preventing judgment; admission is not justified merely because a party later discovers documents – District Judge allowed extra evidence even before hearing the appeal and without identifying a lacuna – Held: reception contrary to Order 41 Rule 27; such evidence to be ignored [Paras 6–9].

Civil Appeal – Order 41 Rule 27 CPC – Section 100 CPC – Section 7, Punjab Act II of 1920 – Appeal Dismissed – High Court rightly set aside District Judge’s decree that rested on additional evidence improperly admitted; with property found non-ancestral, Section 7 barred challenge to alienation under custom; suit dismissed [Paras 6–12].

Second Appeal – Section 100 CPC – Findings Based on Illegally Admitted Evidence – Though factual findings are generally binding, a finding founded on additional evidence improperly received and ignoring glaring intrinsic defects is not conclusive in second appeal – High Court could disregard such evidence and interfere [Paras 9–10].

Customary Law – Proof of Ancestral Property – No Presumption – In absence of proof that the common ancestor owned the land which devolved by inheritance (particularly where other sons existed and records show only two sons in equal shares), no presumption of ancestrality arises – Plaintiff failed to prove Pattar Kalan lands were ancestral [Para 11].

Punjab Custom vs Statute – Section 7, Punjab Act II of 1920 – Bar to Challenge of Non-Ancestral Alienations – District Judge erred in decreeing even non-ancestral properties and in assuming a general prohibition on wills – Section 7 expressly bars contesting alienation of non-ancestral immovable property notwithstanding Section 5, Punjab Laws Act, 1872 – Suit not maintainable once land held non-ancestral [Para 12].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Decree of the High Court restored; suit fails; costs against appellant in all courts [Para 12].

Specific Performance – Restitution under Section 65 Contract Act – Alternative relief on defendant’s plea – Appeal partly allowed – Plaintiff’s claim for specific performance rejected on concurrent findings that no concluded contract or part performance existed – Nevertheless, where defendants themselves pleaded receipt of Rs. 30,000 as a loan, Court can grant restitution despite no alternative pleading by plaintiff – Relief based on defendant’s own admissions causes no prejudice and avoids multiplicity of suits [Paras 5–9, 11–12].

Appellate Practice – Concurrent Findings – Limited interference – Supreme Court will not reappraise evidence on pure facts absent exceptional circumstances – Findings that no contract existed and possession was not in part performance affirmed [Para 8].

Pleadings – Inconsistent/Alternative Relief – Permissibility – A plaintiff may rely on different and even inconsistent rights in the alternative – Though not pleaded here, Court may grant a decree on the case the defendant himself sets up (receipt of money), applying Section 65 – Privy Council followed [Para 9].

Interest – Possession and Tender – No interest payable while plaintiff was in possession; interest at 4% p.a. awarded from 01/09/1943 until realization – Alleged tender by hundi disputed and in any case not a valid tender in law on facts [Para 10].

Decision – Appeal allowed in part – Specific performance refused – Money decree for Rs. 30,000 against second party defendants with 4% p.a. interest from 01/09/1943; parties to bear their own costs [Paras 11–12].