Case Summary - Samsher Singh Vs State of Punjab and Another & Ishwar Chand Agarwal (1974)
(1974) 08 SC CK 0043
In The Supreme Court of India
Case No: Civil Appeal Nos. 2289 of 1970 and 632 of 1971
Samsher Singh (Appellant)
Vs
State of Punjab and Another / Ishwar Chand Agarwal (Respondent)
Date of Decision: 23-08-1974
Bench: Full Bench
Hon'ble Judges: A. N. Ray, C.J; Y. V. Chandrachud, J; V. R. Krishna Iyer, J; P. N. Bhagwati, J; K. K. Mathew, J; D. G. Palekar, J; A. Alagiriswami, J
Final Decision: —
[Judgment Source]
https://www.courtkutchehry.com/Judgement/Search/AdvancedV2?docid=279979
All Citations
AIR 1974 SC 2192; (1974) 2 LLJ 465; (1974) 2 SCC 831; (1975) 1 SCR 814; (1975) 1 SLJ 1
Facts of the Case
Samsher Singh and Ishwar Chand Agarwal, both probationary judges in the Punjab Civil Service (Judicial Branch), were terminated by orders of the Governor of Punjab citing Rule 9 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1952 and Rule 7(3) of the Punjab Civil Services (Judicial Branch) Rules, 1951 respectively. They challenged the termination, arguing that under Article 234 of the Constitution, the Governor must exercise the powers of appointment and removal of subordinate judges personally, without ministerial aid and advice. The State contended that the Governor acts on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers except where the Constitution requires personal discretion.
Law Points Raised
1. Whether the Governor's power under Article 234 is personal or to be exercised on ministerial advice.
2. Scope of 'aid and advice' under Article 163 in relation to judicial appointments/removals.
3. Interaction between executive powers under Article 154 and judicial service appointments.
4. Applicability of Sardari Lal precedent to Article 234 cases.
Acts / Provisions / Articles Referred
• Constitution of India, 1950 — Articles 53(1), 123, 131, 154, 154(1), 163, 166, 166(3), 234, 258(1), 268, 279
• Punjab Civil Services (Judicial Branch) Rules, 1951 — Rule 7(3)
• Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1952 — Rule 9
• Representation of the People Act, 1951 — Section 14
• Government of India Act, 1935 — Section 59, 59(3)
Judgements Referred
• Sardari Lal case — on personal satisfaction of Governor/President under Article 311(2) proviso (c).
Obiter Dicta
The Court discussed the limited instances where the Governor acts in personal discretion, emphasizing that in most matters, including Article 234, the Governor is bound by ministerial advice unless the Constitution expressly provides otherwise.
Ratio Decidendi
The Governor's powers under Article 234 for appointment and removal of subordinate judges are not personal powers but must be exercised on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, consistent with the constitutional scheme of executive responsibility.
Final Ruling
The Supreme Court rejected the appellants’ contention of personal discretion under Article 234, holding that the Governor acts on ministerial advice. This clarified the constitutional position on executive powers in relation to the judiciary.
Summary
This case is a landmark in defining the constitutional relationship between the Governor, the Council of Ministers, and the judiciary. It established that except where expressly provided, the Governor's powers, including under Article 234, are to be exercised on ministerial advice, reinforcing the principle of responsible government.
[Judgment Source]
https://www.courtkutchehry.com/Judgement/Search/AdvancedV2?docid=279979