Holding

The Supreme Court held that the sale of the redundant plant did not infringe the petitioners' Article 19(1)(g) right nor contravene Article 14, and therefore dismissed the writ petition.

Summary

The petitioners, comprising workers and a union, challenged the sale of redundant plants and equipment of the Sindri Fertilizer Factory, alleging procedural irregularities, price manipulation, and violation of their fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(g) and 14 of the Constitution. They claimed the sale would cause retrenchment of about 11,000 workers and result in a loss to the public exchequer. The Court examined whether the sale affected the workers' right to carry on an occupation and whether the sale process was arbitrary or unfair. It held that the right under Article 19(1)(g) is a general right to work, not a right to a specific post, and the sale did not deprive the workers of this right. The Court also found no arbitrariness or unfairness in the sale, noting the assets sold were redundant and the procedure complied with statutory powers. Consequently, the petition was dismissed and the sale upheld.

Issues considered

The sale of redundant plant and equipment violates the workers' fundamental right to carry on an occupation under Article 19(1)(g).
The sale is arbitrary, unfair or mala fide, thereby violating Article 14 of the Constitution.
Whether the petitioners have locus standi to invoke Article 32 for relief.
Whether the procedural steps taken by the Fertilizer Corporation complied with statutory requirements.

Legislation cited

Companies Act, 1956s. 617

Subjects

Article 19(1)(g)Article 14Article 32Article 226public property salelocus standipublic interest litigationfundamental rightsarbitrarinessfairnesspublic sectorworkers' rights

Judgment

52

A FERTILIZER CORPORATION KAMGAR UNION (REGD.),
SINDRI AND OTHERS
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

B November 13, 1980
[Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, C.J., P. N. BHAGWATI, V. R. KRISHNA IYER,
S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI AND A. D. KOSHAL, JJ.]
....,.
Constitution of India-Article 19(1)(g)-Sale of redundant /retired pla_'lfS
& equipment--Occupation of an industrial l'.'Orker-Whet!ter affected by sucfl
-C sale-Article 14-Whether violated-Article 43A-Wrongs con1mitted by
management in public sector whether can be remedied-Article 31-Access to
Justice-Public Property dissipated by sale-When and by who1n can the sale
be set aside.

The petitioners (v.lorkers) challenged the legality of the sale of certain
plants and equipment of the Sindri Fertilizer Factory, whereby the highest
•D terider submitted by respondent No. 4 \Vas accepted by the Tender Committee
and approved by the Board of Directors. The petitioners, amongst others, ccu.~
tended that (i) that the decision to sell the plants and equipment of the Factcry
was taken without rolling for any report; ;(ii) the original tender of Rs. 7.~
crores was unaccountably reduced to Rs. 4.25 crores; (iii) the price of the
plants and equipment, which was ultimately realised in the sale was manipulated
V.'ith ulterior purposes; (iv) the decision to restrict fresh offers, in respect of
!E the reduced equipment, to the tenderers who had submitted tenders for more
· than Rs. 4 crores was unfair and arbitrary; (v) the said decision resulted in
a huge loss to the public exchequer and (vi) the sale had jeopardised the
employment of 11000 odd \Yorkers who faced retrenchment as a result of the
iale.

On behalf of petitioners 3 and 4 it was further contended that the sa1e will
deprive them of their fundamental right under Article 19(1) (g) to carry on
F their occupation as industrial workers and that the sale is in violation of the
provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution being arbitrary and unfair. The
respondents raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ
petition on the ground that the petitioners have no locus standi and that the
impugned sale did not violate any Of the fundamental rights of the petition~!'$.

Dismissing the petition :
G
HELD (By the Court)
The petitioners' right under Art. 19(1) (g) to carry on their occupation as
industrial workers was not affected by the sale, nor was their fundamental right,
if any, under Article 14 of the Constitution violated. [60 Al

(Per Chandrochud, CJ., Faznl Ali & Kosbal, JJ.)

1. The violation of a fundamental right is the sine qua non cf the exerc!se
of the right conferred by Article 32.
FERTILIZER CORPN. V. UNION 53

The jurisdiction conferred on the Supreme Court by Article 32 is an impor- A
tant and integral part of the basic structure of the· Constitution because it is
meaningless to confer fundamental rights without providing an effective remedy
for their enforcement, if and when they are violated. A right without a remedy
is a legal conundrum of a most grotesque kind. [59 E·Fl

2. Whereas the right guaranteed by Article 32 can be exercised for !he
enforcement of fundamental rights only, the right conferred by Article 226 can B
be exercised not only for the enforcement of fundamental rights but for any
ether purpose. [59 E]

3(i). There is no substance in the grievance that the petitioners' right under
Article 19(1)(g) is violated or is in the imminent danger of being violated
by the impugned sale, since not only did the sale not affect the employment
of the workers employed in the Factory, but those of them who were rendered
surplus from time to time on account of the closure of the plants were absorbed
c
in alternate employment in the same complex. [60 C, F·G]

(ii) The right of petirioners 3 and 4 and of the other workers is not, in
any manner, affected by the impugned sale. The right to pursue a calling
or to carry on an occupation is not the same thing as the right to work in a
particular post under a contract of employment. If the workers are retrenched
consequent upon and on account of the sale, it will be open to them, to pursue D
their rights and remedies under the Industrial Laws. The closure of an esta·
blishment in which a workman is for the time being employed does not by it-
self infringe his fundamental right to carry on an occupation which is guaran·
teed by Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. [60 G-H, 61 A]

4. Article 19(1)(g) confers a broad and general right which is available
to all persons to do work of any particular kind and of their choice. It does E
not confer the right to hold a particular job or to occupy a particular post of
one's choice. Even under Article 311 of the Constitution, the right to continue
in ~ervice falls with the abolition of the. post in which the person is working.
The workers in the instant case can no more complain of the infringement of
their fundamental right under Article 19{l){g) than can a Government servant
complain of the termination of his employment on the abolition of his post.
The_ choice end freedom of the workers to work as industrial workers is not F
affected by the sale. The sale may at the highest affect their locum, but it

... does not affect their locus, to work as industrial workers. [61 B-D]

5. In the instant case, it is quite difficult to hold that the decision to sell
the plants and equipment of the Factory was arbitrary, unreasonable or nUJla
fide. The real drive of the petition is against the decision of the Board to sell
the plants and equipment. It is that decision which is stated to furnish the G
cause to complain of the violation of the right conferred by Article 14, fairness,
justness and reasonableness being its implicit assumptions. [64 D-F]

6. As far as possible, sales of public property, when the intention is to get
the best price, ought to take place publicly. The vendors are not necessarily
bound to accept the highest or any other offer, but the· public at least gets the
• satisfaction that the Government has put all its cards on the table. One can- H
not exclude the possibility here that a better price might have been realised in
a fresh public auction but such possibilities cannot vitiate the sale or justify
the allegation of mala fides. [64 G-H, 65 A-BJ
54 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1981] 2 S.C.R.

A 7. It cannot be held that the petitioners' rights, if any, under Article 14 are
violated, in view of the fact that neither the decision to sell nor the .sale pro-
ceedings were unreasonable, unjust or unfair. But if and when a sale of public
property is found to be vitiated by arbitrariness of n1ala fides, it would be
n~cessary to consider the larger question as to \Vho has the right to complain
of it. [65 C, D-EJ

B 8. (i) The maintainability of a writ petition which is correlated to the
existence and violation of a fundamental right is not always to be confused
with the locus to bring a proceeding under Article 32. These two matters often
mingle and coalesce with the result that it becomes difficult to consider them
in water-tight compartments. The question whether a person has the locus to ~
file a proceedings depends mostly and often on whether he possesses a legal
right and that right is violated. · But, in an appropriate case, it may become
C necessary in the changing awareness of legal rights and social obligations to
take a broader view of the question of locus to initiate a proceeding, be it
under Article 226 or under Article 32 of the Constitution. [65 E-G]

(ii) The Court might not have refused relief to the workers if it had found
that the sale was unjust, unfair or mala fide. If a public property is dissipated,
it would require a strong argument to convince the Court that representative
D segments of the public or at least a section of the public which is directly
interested and affected would have no right to complain of the infraction of
public duties and obligations. Public enterprises are owned by the people and
those who run them are accountable to the people. The accountability of the
public sector ro the Parliament is ineffective because the parliamentary control
of public enterprises is "diffuse and haphazard". [65 G-H, 66 A]

E (Per Bhagwati and Krishna. Iyer, JJ. concurring)
1. Public law, as part of the panorama of the developmental process, mu5t
possess the specific techniques of public sector control within \\'ell-defined para·
meters which \Yill anathematise administration by court writ and interdict
public officials handling public resources in disregard of normatice essentials
and constitutional fundan1entals. In a society in which the State had thru<>t
upon it the imperative of effectuating massive transformation of economy and
F social structure the demands upon the legal order to inhibit administrative eviis
and engineer developmental progress are enormous, though novel.
[68 E & 69 A-BJ

2. It is important to underscore the vital departure from rhe pattern of
judicial review in the Anglo-American legal environment because the demands
nf development obligated by Part IV compel creative extensions to control
G jurisprudence in many fields, including business administrative lav:. contract law,
penal law, fiscal low and the like. [69 C-Dl
3. Judicial interference with the Admini5tration cannot be meticulous. The
court cannot usurp or abdicate, and the parameters of judicial review must be
clearly defined and never exceeded. If the Directorate of a Governmeht com-
pany has acted fair1y, e\·en if it has faltered in its wisdom, the court cannot,
a<; a super-auditor. take th.:! Board of Directors to task. This function is limited •
H to testing ¥.'hether the ad1ninistrative action has been fair and free from the
taint of unreasonableness and has substantially complied with the norms of
procedure set for it by rules of public administration. [71 A-CJ
FERTILIZER CORPN. V. UNION 55

4. Locus Standi must be liberalised to meet the challenges of the time. Ubi A
jus ibi rc111cdium must be enlarged to embrace all interests of public-n1inded
~ 1tizens or organisations with serious concern for conservation of public re-
\!IOUrccs and the direction and correction of public power so as to promote
justice in its triune facets. [71 D-E]

5. An officious busybody picking up a stray dispute or idle peddlar of
·blackmail-litigation through abuse of the· process of the court cannot be permitted B
lo pollute the court instrumentality, for private objectives. Public justice is
al\vays <ind only at the· service of public good, never the servant or janitor of
.private interest or personal motive. [72 B-C]

6. Public interest litigation is part of the process of participate justice and
'standing' in civil litigation of that pattern must have liberal reception at the
judicial door-stej!S. [74 E-F] c
7. Certainly, it is not part of the judicial process to examine entrepreneurial
activirics to ferret out :flaws. The court is least equipped for such oversighls,
Nor, indeed, is it a function of the judges under the constitutional scheme. The
mternal 1nanagement, business activity or institutional operation of public
bodies cannot be subjected to inspection by the Court. To do so, is incom-
petent and in1proper and, therefore, out of bounds. Nevertheless, the broad D
parameters of fairness in administration, bona fides in action, and the funda-
mental rules of reasonable management of public business, if breached will
become justiciable. [77 A-CJ

• 8. Article 43A of the Constitution confers, in principle, partnership status
to workers in industry and therefore technical considerations of corporate per-
sonality cannot keep out those '\Vho seek to remedy wrongs committed in the E
ntanagement of the public sector. (76 GJ

Municipal Council, Ratlani v. Shri Vnrdliicliand and Ors. [1981] 1 S.C.R. 97
Wisconsin Lo\V Revie\V, \'ol. 1966 : 999 at P. 1064 and M. Cappelletti, Rabels
I. (1976) 669 at 672 referred to.

F
0RIG!NAL JurusoICTION : Writ Petition No. 3804 of 1980.

(Under Article 32 of \he Constitution).
R. K. Garg, Sunil K. Jain, D. K. Garg, Sukumar Sahu and V. J.
Francis for the Petitioners.
G
L. N. Sinha, Att. General of India, M. M. Abdul Khader, T.V.S.
Narasimhachari and M. N. Shroff for Respondent No. 1.
M. K. Banerjee, Addl. Sol. Genl., J. B. Dadachanji, C. M. Oberoi
r
and K. J. John for Respondent No. 2.
A. K. Sen, S. S. Ray, R. S. Nanda, Anindya Mitra, Parijat Sinha B
N. P. A garwala, C. K. Jain, Bardar Ah'mad, Mrs. R. Dhariwal and
M. C. Dhin~ra for Respondent No. 4.

- Jt&lltJ!M M
56 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1981] 2 S.C.R.

A The Judgment of Y. V. Chandrachud, C.J., S. Murtaza Fazal Ali
and A. D. Kosh.al, JJ. was delivered by, Chandrachud. C.J. V. R.
Krishna Iyer J. gave a concurring Opinion of his own and on behalf
of P.N. Bhagwati, J.
CHANDRACHUD, C.J. By this petition under Article 32 of the
Constitution, the petitioners challenge the legality of the sale of certain
8
plants and equipment of the Sindri Fertilizer Factory, whereby the
highest tender submitted by Respondent 4 in the sum of Rs. 4.25 crores.
was accepted on May 30, 1980. The relief sought by the petitioners
is that the respondents should be directed not to sell away the plant
and equipment, that they should be asked to withdraw their decision to
c sell the same and that the said decision should be quashed as being
illegal and unconstitutional.
Petitioner 1 is a Union of the Workers of the Factory, Petitioner
2, Shri A. K. Roy, a Member of Parliament from Dhanbad, is the
President of that Union, while Petitioners 3 and 4 are workers
employed in the Factory. Respondent 1 to the Writ Petition is the
D Union of India, Respondent 2 is the Fertilizer Corporation of India,
('FCI'), Respondent 3 is the Sindri Fertilizer Factory, while the
added Respondent 4, Ganpatrai Agarwal, is the highest tenderer.
Respondent 2, a Government of India Undertaking, is a Company
incorporated under the Companies Act 1956 and is a 'Government
Company' within the meaning of Section 617 of that Act. It established
E
the Respondent 3 Factory, which was commissioned in 1951. By
article 66 ( 1) of the Articles of Association of respondent 2, its
directors are appointed by the President of India.
On January 4, 1980 the Board of Directors of respondent 2,
(FCI), decided that tenders should be invited for the sale of
F 'Redundant/retired plants and equipment of respondent 3. In pursuance
of that decision, an advertisement was inserted in the newspapers on
February 25, 1980 inviting tenders for the sale of nine units of the
"closed down chemical plants" of the Factory on "as is where is"
basis. The advertisement gave to the intending purchasers the option
to quote for four alternatives, one of which was the quotation for
G individual equipmenV such as pumping sets and compressors. Each
tenderer was required to submit three separate envelopes : Envelope
No. 1 relating to the payment of earnest money; envelope No. 2
relating to the terms and conditions of the sale; and envelope No. 3
relating to the amount of bid offered by the tenderer. The offers were ,
H to be valid until June 19, 1980.
On March 20, 1980 when the envelopes bearing No. 1 were
opened, it was found that two tenderers had not complied with the
HRT!LIZER CORPN. v. UNION (Chandrachud, C.J.) 57

term as to the payment of the earnest money. As a result, the number A
of valid tenders was reduced to nine. Discussions took place there-
after between the tenderers and the authorities, as a result of which
an agreed formula was evolved regan:ling the exclusion of the weights
of foundation and the exclusion of sales-tax from the bids offered. A
few items were also excluded from the list of articles advertised for
sale. In the light of these modifications, the tenderers were asked to B
• submit fresh quotations in a separate envelop~ marked 'No. 4'.

On March 21, 1980 envelopes bearing No. 3 which contained the
original offers and those bearing No. 4 which contained the modified
offers, were opened in the presence of the tenderers. The highest c
original offer was that of r,:spondent 4 in the sum of Rs. 7.6 crores.
The highest modified offer of Rs. 6.2 crores was also made by
respondent 4. The sale was thereafter adjourned.

On March 31, 1980 a letter was received by Respondent 2 that a
part of the plants and equipment which were advertised for sale were D,
needed by thei Fertilizer (Planning and Development) India Ltd. for
the purposes of experiment and research. On April 10, 1980 a similar
request was received from the Ramagundam Division of Respondent 2.
On May 14, 1980 the Board of Directors decided that only those
items should be offered for sale which remained after meeting the
requirements of the Fertilizer (Planning and Development) and the
Ramagundam Division and that fresh offers should be invited for the
reduced stock, restricted to the tenderers who had submitted modified
tenders in sums exceeding Rs. 4 crores. There were six such tenders
amongst the nine valid tenders. A week later, the six tenderers who
had submitted those tenders were called to Sindri and a fresh list of p,
reduced items was furnished to them. They submitted their revised
tenders in sealed covers on May 23, 1980. On May 24, the Tender
Committee considered the offer made by Respondent 4 in the sum of
Rs. 4.25 crores as the best, that being the highest amongst the fresh
reduced offers. The Tender Committee referred the matter to the
Board on the same date and on May 29, the Board gave its approval G.
to the acceptance of respondent 4's offer. On May 30, a letter of
Intent was issued by R~spondent 2 in the name of Respondent 4 who
paid the security deposit of Rs. 50 lakhs on June 13, 1980. An order
of sale in favour of Respondent 4 was issued by Respondent 2 on July
, 7, 1980 whereupon Respondent 4 started dismantling the machinery
and equipment which he had purchased. This Writ Petition was filed
on August 14, 1980. On August 25, the Court issued a show cause
notice on the writ petition and stayed the sale.
II

58 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1981) 2 S.C.R.

A The petitioners challenge the sale, inter alia, on the following
grounds:
(1) that the decision to sell the plants and eqnipment of
the Factory was taken without calling for any report, •
expert or otherwise;
B (2) that the original tender of Rs. 7.6 crores was
unaccountably reduced to Rs. 4.25 crores; •
(3) that the price of the plants and equipment, which
was ultimately realised in the sale was manipulated
with ulterior purposes;
c ( 4) that the decision to restrict the fresh offers, in
respect of the reduced equipment, to the tenderers
who had submitted tenders for more than Rs. 4
crores was unfair and arbitrary;
(5) that the said decision resulted iu a huge loss to the
public exchequer since, if the sale was readvertised,
D an appreciably higher price would have been
realised; and
( 6) the sale bas jeopardised the employment of 11000
odd workers who face retrenchment as: a result of the
sale.
E Petitioners 3 and 4 support this petition undet Article 32 of the
Constitution by contending that the sale will deprive them of their
fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) to carry on their occupa-
tion as industrial workers. They contend further that the sale is in
violation of the provisions of Article 14, since it is arbitrary and
unfair.
F
The learned Attorney General, who appears on behalf of the
Union of India, has raised a preliminary objection to the maintain-
ability of the writ Petition on the ground that in the first place, the
petitioners hav0 no locus standi to file the petition and secondly, that

G
the impugned sale does not violate any of the fundamental rights of
the petitioners. We must decide this objection before considering the
...
contentions raised by Shri R. K. Garg on behalf of the petitioners.
Article 32 of the Constitution which guarantees by clause ( 1) the
right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the

H
enforcement of the rights conferred by Part III, provides by clause
(2) that:
,
"The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions
or orders or writs, including writs in the nature o'f habeas

--
.,
FERTILIZER CORPN. v. UNION (Chandrachuil, C.J.) 59

corpus, mandamus, prohibition, qno warranto and certiorari, A
whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of
the rights conferred by this Part".
I
It is malrifest that the jurisdiction conferred on this Court by Article
32 can be exercised for the enforcement of the rights conferred by
Part III and for po other purpose. Clanse (1) as well as clause (2) B
of Article 32 bring ont this point in sharp focus. As contrasted with
Article 32, Article 226 (1) of the Constitution provides that :
"Notwithstanding anything in article 32 every High
Court shall have power, throughout the territories in relation
to which it exercises jurisdiction, to issue to any person or c
authority, including in appropriate· cases, any Government,
withltn those territories directions, orders or writs, including
writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition,
qno warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforce-
ment of any of the rights conferred by Part ID and for any
other purpose". (emphasis snpplied). ' D

The difference in the phraseology of the two Articles brings out the
marked difference in the nature and purpose of the right conferred by
these Articles. Whereas the right guaranteed by Article 32 can be
exercised for the enforcement of fundamental rights only, the right
E
conferred by Article 226 can be exercised not only for the enforce-
. ment of fundamental rights but for any other purpose.

The jurisdiction conferred on the Supreme Court by Article
32 is an important and integral part of the basic 'structure of the
Constitution because it is meaningless to confer fundamental rights F
without providing an effective remedy for their enforcement, if and
when they are violated. A right without a remedy is a legal conundrnm
~·. of a most grotesque kind. While the draft Article 25, which
corresponds to Article 32, was being discussed in the Constituent
Assembly, Dr. Ambedkar made a meaningful observation by saying :
G
"If I was asked to name any particular article in this
Constitution as the most important-an article without which
this Constitntion would be a nullity-I could not refer to any
other article except this one. It is the very soul of the
Constitiition and the very heart of it and I am glad that the
House has reali$ed its importance". (Constituent Assembly H
Debates, December 9, 1948, Vol. VII, p. 953).
5-1281 SCJ/80
60 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1981] 2 S.C.R.

A But though the right guaranteed by Article 32 is one of the highly
cherished rights conferred by the Constitution, the purpose for which
that right can be enforced is stated in the very article which confers
that right. The violation of a fundamental right is the sine qua non of
the exercise of the right conferred by Article 32.

B That makes it necessary to consider whether any of the funda-
m~ntal rights of the petitioners is violated or is in the imminent
danger of being violated by the sale of the plants and equipment of
the Factory. The grievance of the petitioners is that two of their
fundamental rights are violated by the sale, one under Article
19(1) (g) and the other under Article 14 of the Constitution.

We find no substance in. the grievance that the petitioners' right
under Article 19 ( 1) (g) is violated or is in the imminent danger of
being violated by the sale. That Article confers on all citizens the
right to practise any profession or to carry on any occupation trade
or business. The right of the petitioners to carry on an occupation is
:D not infringed by the sale mediately or immediately, actually or
pote11tially, for two reasons. In the first place, Shri R. C. Malhotra,
who is the Chief Engineer of the Sindri Unit, says in paragraph 5 of
the counter-affidavit filed by him on behalf of the FCI, that althoogh
the old plants anj equipment had to be shut down from 1976 to 1979
E because they had become redundant, unsafe or unworkable, no
employee was deprived of his employment on that account., Shri
Malhotra says further in the same paragraph and in paragraph 6 of.
the counter-affidavit, that the management of the FCI had decided to
deploy the workmen working in the plants that had to be shut down
in various other plants set up under the scheme of modernisation and
F rationalisation and in the various facilities that had been renovated in
the Sindri complex itself. Thus, not only did the sale· not affect the
~mployment of the workers employed in the Factory, but those of
them who were rendered surplus from tinle to time on account of the
closure of the plants were absorbed in alternate employment in the
same complex.
G
Secondly, the right of Petitioners 3 and 4 and of. the other workers
to carry on the occupation of industrial workers is not, in any manner
affected by the impugned sale. The right to pursue a calling or . to
karry on an occupation is not the same thing as the' right to work in a
"articular post under a contract of employment. If the workers are
fl retrenched consequent upon and on account of the sale, it ~ill be open
to them to purSue their rights and remedies under the Industrial Laws.
But the point to be noted is that the closure of an establishment in
l'ERTILIZER CORPN. v. UNION (Chandrachud, C.J.) 61

..which a workman is for the time being employed does not by itself A
infringe his fundamental right to carry on an occupation which is
guaranteed by Article 19 ( 1) (g) of the Constitution. Supposing a law
were passed preventing a certain category of workers from accepting
employment in a fertiliser factory, it would be pol;sible to contend then
that the workers have been deprived of their right to carry on ai1
occupation. Even assuming that some of the workers may eventually B
have to be retrenched in the instant case, it will not be possible to say
that their right to carry on an occupation has been violated. It would
be open to them, though undoubtedly it will not be easy, to find out
other avenues of employment as industrial workers. Article 19 (1) (g) \
confers a broad and general right which is available to all persons to
do work of any particular kind and of their choice. It does not comer C
the right to hold a particular job or to occupy a particular · post of
one's choice. Even under Article 311 of the Constitution, the right to I
continue in service falls with the abolition of the post in which the l
person is working. The workers in the instant case .can no more
complain of the infringement of their fundamental right under Article
19 ( 1) (g) than can a Government servant complain of the termina-
tion of his employmenu on the abolition of his post. The choice and
freedom of the workers to work as industrial workers is not affected
by the sale. The sale may at the highest affect their locum, but it does
ID

not affect their locus, to work as industrial workers. This is enough
unto the day o;Ait.19(l)(g).

:i;n regard to the infringement of the right under Article 14, the
contention of the petitioners is that the plants and equipment of the
factory were sold Without the benefit of any expert report, that the
decision to effect the sale was taken arbitrarily, that it was actuated
by an ulterior motive, and that the sale is vitiated by the violation of F
the principles of natural justice since the ultinlate bid was restricted
to a select group of persons. The petitioners contend that the arbitrac
riness and unfairness of the sale is reflected in the circumstance that
• the original bid of Rs. 7.6 crores came down to Rs. 4.25 crores. If
the sale was readvertised after there was a material variation in its
terms, the plants and equipment, according to the petitioners, would G
have fetched a much higher price.

A clear and satisfactory answer to this contention is provided by
the learned Additional Solicitor General, who appears on behalf of
Respondent 2, FCI. He has. pointed out to us numerous circumstance~ H
from which it would appear that the grievance of the petitioners that
the sale was unfair and arbitrary is not justified.
62 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1981] 2 S.C.R.

A The affidavits filed on behalf of the respondents, particularly thoso
of Shri R. C. Malhotr~, Chief Engineer of the Sindri Unit and of Shri
K. V. Krishna Ayyar, Under Secretary in the Department of Chemi-
cals and Fertilisers, Government of India, show that the Sindri Plant,
which was commissioned in 1951 and was expanded in 1959 and 1969
by providing certain extra facilities, had outlived its use. Various
schemes were considered from time to time for improving the econo-
mics of the Sindri Unit in order to ensure continued employment to
the workers. The first of such schemes was the Sindri Rationalisation
Scheme, which was approved by the Government in 1967. This ·
. scheme was completed in October 1979 at a cost of Rs. 60.77 crores.
While the Ra~ionalisation Scheme was under implementation, it trans-
c pired that the Ammonia manufacturing facilities. based on coke were
fast deteriorating and unless the equipment was renovated substantially
or was replaced with modem equipment, it was impossible to expect
stability in the production of Nitrogenous fertilisers from the plant.
Different alternatives were before the Government in this behalf, and,.
finally, the Sindri Modernisation Scheme was approved by it in
D
November 1973. This Scheme envisaged the shutting down of the
old Ammonia plant based on coke and the setting up of a modem
Ammonia plant producing 900 tonnes a day of Ammonia with low
sulphur heavy stock as foodstock. This scheme was complete,d in
October 1979 at a cost of Rs. 183.19 crores. Thus, the long term
E plan of the Government was to reta,in the Ammonium Sulphate plant
after renovating it and to shut down the old coke-based Ammonia
plant. The plant operations with the old plant showed considerable
deterioration in 1975-76. A team of engineers of the Sindri Unit as
well as of th(l Plannin!l and Development Division of the Fertiliser Cor-
poration, in association with the engineers of the Central Mechanical
F Engineering Research Institute, Durgapur, undertook Survey, examina-
tion and inspection of the plants with a view to determining their status
and condition. A committee of Directors was also appointed for the
same purpose. One of the main. critetia which thti Directors kept before
themselves in view of the reported unsafe working condition of the
,.
plant was the safety of the personnel and the workmen. The matter
G was thereafter kept under constant review and parts of l:he plant were
retired or closed down from time to time as and when their operatio~
became unsafe and uneconomical. The running of the old plant had
indeed become so uneconomical that as against the cost of production
of Rs. 787.23 per ton of Ammonia in 1971-7~, the cost of production
'
in 1.978-79 was approximately Rs. 6296/- per ton. An additional
H circumstance which compelled the closure of a part of the plant is the
fact that the raw material required for the old plant comprised a
special high quality coal which is in short supply.
FERTILIZER CORPN. v. UNION (Chandrachud, C.1.) 63

On the question of arbitrariness of the sale, the following facts and A
.circumstances are particularlY relevant :

( 1) The decision of the Board of Directors in respect of
the sale relates only to the .redundant or retired plants
and equipment;
B
(2) The Board is authorised by article 68(20) of the
'Articles of Association of the <Corporation to sell even
the whole of the undertaking with the prior approval
of the President of India. Such approval was taken
before the sale was finalised in favour of Respondent
4; c
(3) The decision of the Board was restricted to a small
part of the assets of the Sindri Factory. The balance-
sheet for 1954-55 of the erstwhile Sindri Fertiliser &
Chemicals Ltd. shows that the assets of the said
Factory were of the value of Rs. 22,82,99,086/- as
D
on April 1, 1954, out of which plants, equip-
ment, machinery, etc. , were of the value of
Rs. 14,68,59,502/-. The original cost of the plants
and equipment, which have now been sold, was about
Rs. 10 crores, of which the written-down value as E
on March 31, 1980 \Vas about Rs. 50 lakhs. The
present outlay on the Sindri Unit is in the region of
Rs. 220 crores;

( 4) The decision to sell the redundant or retired. plants
became necessary for the reason that they had out-
lived their life, having run for a period ranging from F
18 to 28 years. It had also become unsafe, hazardous
and uneconomic to run such plants and equipment;
and

(5) Although the old plants had to be shut down on
account of the sale, no employee at all was retrenched
or is likely to be retrenched on account of the sale.

The answer which the Minister for Petroleum and Chemicals gave
on the floor of the House to the question put by respondent 2 is, if we
may say so, strictly 'parliamentary'. The question was whether there
was any report justifying the sale. The• answer was 'NO' because there H
were reports which prece<!ed the sale and which advised the sale. But
they did, not 'justify' the sale, which is an ex post facto matter. In .fact
64 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1981] 2 S.C.R.

A many a report had suggested the disbanding of worn out, uneconomi-
cal and hazardous plants of Fertilizer undertakings like :
1. Report of the Fertilizer Mission to India of the Interna-
tional Bank for the Reconstrnction and Development
published July, 1969. ·
B 2. Techno economic study of Alternative schemes for
Sindri Modernisation Project prepared by Planning
and Development Division of Fertilizer Corporation
of India and published May 1971.
Y.-Techno economic Feasibility Report of Sindri Modern-
isation Project published by Planning and Development
c Division 1973 .of Fertilizer Corporation of India.
4. Appraisal of Sindri Fertilizer Project India-Report of
the International Bank for Reconstruction & Develop-
ment, International Development Associatioo, pub-
lished November, 1974.
D 5. Report on Works Transformation and Environmental
Study by M/s UNICO International Corporation of
Japan, published July 1975.
In view of these facts and circumstances, it is quite difficult to
hold that the decision to sell the plants and equipment of the Factory
E was arbitrary, unreasonable or ma/a fide. It has to be emphasized
that the real drive of the· petition is against the decision of the Board
to sell the plants and equipment. It is that decision which is stated
to furnish the cause to complain of the violation of the right conferred
by article 14, fairness, justness and reasonableness being its implicit
assumptions.
There is only one other aspect of the matter and that we are unable
to view with any. great equanimity. It is clear from the proceedings
that the plants which were initially advertised for sale went through
variation on two occasions. The first variation which was made on
March 20, 1980 may not be regarded as si;bstantial. But after the sale
G was adjourned to March 31, 1980, the requests received by the FCI
from the other public sector tmdertakings stating, that they were in
need of a part of the equipment which was advertised for sale, led to
a substantial reduction in the goods advertised for sale. The autho- '
rities then sent for the nine tenderers and negotiated with them across
the table. We want to make it clear that we do not doubt the booa.fides
H of the .authorities, but as far as possible, sales of public property, when
the intention is to get the best price, ought to take place publicly. The
vendors arn not necessarily bound to accept the highest or any other
FERTILIZER CORPN. v. UNION (Chandrachud, C.J.) 65

A
offer, but the public at least gets the satisfaction that the Government
has put all its cards on the table. In the instant case, the ofticers who
were concerned with the sale have inevitably, though unjustifiably,
attracted the criticism that during the course of negotiations the
original bid was reduced without a justifying cause. We had willy-
nilly to spend quite some valuable time in satisfying ourselves that the
reduction in the price was a necessary and fair consequence of the B
reduction in the quantity of the goods later offered for sale on March
31, 1980. One cannot exclude the possibility that a better price might
have been realised in a fresh public auction but snch possibilitie3
cannot vitiate the sale or justify the allegalion of mala fides.

In view of the fact that neither the decision to sell nor the sale c
proceeilings were unreasonable, unjust or unfair, it cannot be held that
the petitioner's rights, if any, under Article 14 are violated. The
learned Attorney General contended that arbitrariness would be
actionable under Article 32, only if it causes injury to the fundamental
rights of the petitioner, and that the petitioners in the instant case
have no fundamental right in the exercise of which they can challenge D
the sale. We consider it unnecessary to examine this contention because
·$
• the sale is not vitiated by any unfairness or arbitrariness. If and when
a sale of public property is found to be vitiated by arbitrariness or
ma/a [ides, it would be necessary to consider the larger question as to
who has the right to complain of it. E
That disposes of the question as regards the maintainability of the
writ petition. But, we feel concerned to point out that the maintain-
ability of a writ petition which is correlated to the existence and
violation of a fundamental right is not always to be• confused with the
locus to bring a proceeding under Article 32. These two matters often F
mingle· and coalesce with the result that it becomes difficult to consider
them in water-tight compartments. The question whether a person has
the locus to file a proceeding depends mostly and often on whether he
'
possesses a legal right and that right is violated. But, in an appropriate
\
case, it may become necessary in the changing awareness of . legai
rights and social obligations to take a broader view of the question of G
locus to initiate a proceeding, be it under Article 226 or under Article
32 of the Constitution. If public property is dissipated, it would
requlre a strong argument to convince the Court that representative
segments of the public or at least a section of the public which is
directly interested and affected would have no right to complain of the
infraction of public duties and obligations. Public enterprises are 0
owned by the people and those who run them are accountable to the
people. The accountability of the public sector to the Parliament is
66 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1981) 2 S.C.R.
'
A ineffective because the parliamentary control of public enterprises is
"diffuse and haphazard". We are not too sure if we would have refused
relief to the workers if we had found that the· sale was unjust, unfair
or mala fide.

Several decisions were cited before ns by the learned Attorney
8 General, the learned Additional Solicitor General, Shri A. K. Sen and
Shri R. · K. Garg on the questiou of the maintainability of ' the writ
petition. We consider it unnecessary to discuss them in view of the
fact that we have come to the conclusion that the petitioner's funda-
mental right undet Article 19 (1) (g) to carry on the occupation of an
industrial worker is not affected by the sale, and similarly, that his
c fundamental right, if any, under Article 14 of the Constitution has not
been violated.

· The question as regards 'access to justice', particularly under
Article 226 of the Constitution, has been dealt with by Brother Krishna
Iyer. at some icngth, fOT which reason I do not consider it necessary to
D dwell upon that topic.

In the result, we dismiss the petition and discharge the rule. There
will be no orde. ~s to costs.

KRISHNA IYER, J. This Writ Petition which, in the forensic
E unfolding through oral submissions, has exceeded our expectations,
bristles with profound issues of deep import one of which is the
citizen's legal standing vis a vis illegal handling of public resources a
jurisprudential area of critical importance but of precedenlial barren-
ness and, therefore, all the more demanding in the developmental
F
setting and social justice imperatives of Law India. The learned Chief
Justice has considered with care some of the profound questions
covered in the course of the arguments and it may be supererogation
to tread the same territory. The general factual presentation and legal
conclusions of the learned Chief Justice have our concurrence. Equally,
the approach to Arts. 14 and 32, with its fascinating expansionism, is
G of strategic sigoificance, viewed in th~ perspective of Third World
jurisprudence. Maybe, that while we broadly agree, our emphasis may
differ, our shades of meaning may vary and, in some places. even our
processes of reasoning may lead us to other destinations. Even so, a
general consensus suffices and we desist from dealing with all the
points discussed by our learned brothers. Nevertheless, some problems
H of seminal significance affecting the adjectival law arc of such compel-
ling futuristic impact that we shall examine them alone in our separate
opinioo.
FERTILIZER CORPN v. UNION (Krishna Iyer, J.) 67

The facts have been stated', the arguments have been indicated A
and that helps us to plunge straight into the poinls we propose to
consider. Briefly, a Government company has gone through the Jong
exercise of selling and allegedly obsolescent steel plant for junk price,
after receiving tenders, holding discussions, making modifications and
ultimately settling the sale in favour of Ganpatrai Aggarwal of
·Calcutta. In this process, two decisions were taken; the first was a B
policy decision to sell a substantial plant, part of which could have
.been salvaged, as if the entire material were scrap; the second question
which the company decided was to call for tenders but to settle the
· sale, not exactly as originally intended, but with many changes, nego-
tiations and alterations, so much so, while the maximum offer iu the
first roundwas for over Rs. 7 crores the actual offer which was
c
accep!ed was for Rs. 4 crores and odd, the difference being explained
by the respondents on the score that many items included in the
original proposal to sell had since been withdrawn.

When a plant is shut down, as in this case, it has beeu, for reasons
the merits of which we do not propose to scrutinise, the workers D
employed in it are ordinarily thrown out of employment. Assuming
· some patch-work arrangement to give lingering employment for some
' time more were offered as a measure of alleviation, that cert3.inly is
not equal to the steady and assured service in a public sector under-
taking which is a Government company owned entirely· by the E
President of India. Their economic fortunes and employment status
are affected by the amputation of a limb of the company. These
workers have invoked the jurisdiction of !his Court under Art. 32 of
· the Constitution and sought to demolish through the writ of this Court,
both the decision to sell the plant on the score of obsolescence and the
dubious, manner of sale which, in their submission, has resulted in F
· colossal loss to the public exchequer and, vicariously, to the citizenry
of the country, including, a fortiori, the workers in the enterprise: Two
questiqns incidentally arise : Have the workers locus standi under Art.
32, which is a special jurisdiction confined to enforcement of funda-
mental rights ? What, if any, are the fundamental rights of workmen
affected by the employer's sale ·of machinery whose mediate impact G
may be conversion of permanent employment into precarious service
and eventual exit? Lastly, bnt most importantly, ·where does the
citizen stand, in the context of the democracy of judicial remedies,
' absent an ombudsman? In the face of (rare, yet real) misuse of
~ administrative power to play ducks and drakes with the public
exchequer, especially where developmental expansion necessarily H
involves astronomical el!penditure and concomitant corruption, do
• "Public bodies enjoy immunity from challenge save through the post
68 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1981] 2 S.C.RC

A mortem of parliamentary organs. What is the role of the judicial pro-
cess, read in the· light of the dynamics of legal control and corporate··
•
autonomy ? This juristic field is virgin but is also heuristic challenge,
so that law must meet life in this critical yet sensitive issue. The.
active co-existence of public sector autonomy, so vital to effective
business management, and judicial control of public power tending to
B berserk, is one of the creative claims upon functional jurisprudence.

The Court cannot wait and, despite allergy to minimal decisional ~
law-making in vacant spaces, the rule of law in this virgin area cannot
leave the fertile field fallow.
c Judicial, though interstitial, lawcmaking is needed in this field.
I.
"Many of the j~dges of England have said that they do not make Jaw.
They only interpret it. This is an illusion they have fostered. But it is
notion which is now being discarded everywhere. Every new decision-
on every new situation-is a development of the law. Law does not
D stand still. It moves continually."(') We have no doubt that public
law, as part of the panorama of the developmental process, must
possess the specific techniques of public sector control within well-
1
defined parameters which will anathematise administration by court '
writ aud interdict public officials handling public resources in·
disregard of normative essentials and constitutional fundamentals.
E
The functional future of the rule Of law in our country depends
on the fulfihnent of the words of Chief Justice Earl Warren : Our
Judges are not monks or scientists, but participants in the living stream
of national life. . . Our system faces no theoretical dilemma, but a
F single continuous problem; how to apply to evercchanging conditions
the never-changing principles of freedom". The Indian citizen does
expect some cybernetic system or ombudsman Mechanism whereby
power geared to public good does not betray the goals of . social
engineering. The jural postulates which are an imperative of our
Independence and planned development assume this command func-
G tion of the law. It is good that we state the inter-action between plan-
ning and law in the words of Prof. Berman :

"Plan is that aspect of the social process which is con-
cerned with ·the maximum utilization of institutions and
resources from the point of view of economic development;
H law is that aspect of the social process which is concerned

(1} Foreward by Lord Denning to the Book "The Supreme Court of India" by
Mr. Rajeev Dhavan, p. vii.
FERTILIZER CORPN v. UNION (Krishna Iyer, !.) 69
•
with the structuring and enforcing of social policy (plan) A
in tenns of the rights and duties therefrom". (1)
Our national reconstruction involves· an enormous increase in
public sector operations, in fulfilment of the paramount directives of
Part IV of the Constitution. In a society in which the State had thrust
upon it the imperative, of effectuating massive transformation of eco-
nomy and social structure the demands upon the legal order to inhibit
administrative evils and engineer developmental progress are enormous,
· though novel. The present case, whatever the merits and the ultimate
conclusion, does raise the deeper issue· of the dynamics of social
justice vis-a-vis the role of the Rule of Law where .the public sector
occupies the commanding heights of the national economy and yet c
asserts a right to be free from judicial review. That canot be. While
it is unnecessary for us to spell out in greater detail the emergence of
a new branch of administrative law in relation to the national plan and
the public sector of tlie economy. It is important to underscore the
vital departure from the pattern of judicial .review in the Angl<>-
American legal enviromnent because the demands of development
obtigated by Part IV compel creative extensions to control juris-
prudence in many fields, including business administrative law, con-
tract law, penal law, fiscal law and the like.

Robert Siedmann, dealing with the law of economic development
E
in Sub-Sal!aran Africa has dealt with the maintenance of legality in
a developmental setting with focus on stability and change and the
evdlution of new nonns of constitutional and adminislrative law. He
rightly stresses what applies to India as well :
"If there are to be some reasonable norms for adminis-
trative behaviour in Africa, the formulation of codes of F
administrative law is desirable. But such codes are not self-
enforcing; without institutional devices to support them, they
becom~ meaningless."(')

He continues to make certain ob5ervations on the enforcement on the
regime of legality and their importance for the Indian scene : G
"If the tone of public life is sufficiently honest and farr-
minded, formal norms are relatively unneeded. That is not the
position in Africa; on the contrary, there is a notable lack
of restraints, upon the exercise; of state power. This betrays
itself most blatantly in the widespread corruption that seems
(I) Berman, Justice in the U.S.S.R. IOI (rev. ed. 1963) quoted in Wisconsin Law H,
Review, Vol. 1966 : 999 at p. 1020.
(2) Wisconsin Law Review, Vol. 1966 : 999 at p. 1064.
70 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1981] 2 S.C.R.

A to exist, especially in West Africa. When corruption per-
meates the entire fabric of government, legality is the firSt
sufferer, for state power is exercised on grounds unrelated to
its nominal purposes.
In English-speaking Africa, the devices for the enforce-
B ment of the few standards of administrative probity that exist
are in the common-law tradition. In some cases there are
internal administrative appeals. Resort to the courts for relief
is theoretically available if au ascertainable ~orrn has been
violated. Relief can be sought in a civil action brought by the
extreme cases, in a criminal action brought by the director
c of public prosecutions.
The civil remedies for administrative wrongdoing thus
depend upon the action of individual citizens. In such an
action, the individual is pitted against the. State--always an
unequal contest. The individual d0es not have even the few
D procedural devices that the common law imports intd crimi-
nal actions to try to redress the balance. At his own expense,
he must challenge the vast panoply of .State power with all
its resources in personnel, money, and legal talent, by a civil
action for a declaratory judgment or for an extraordinary
remedy-injunction, writ of mandamus, or writ of prohibi-
E . tion. Aside from the manifold technical insufficiencies of
these forms of action, the financial impediments to such an
action are staggering. As a result of these impediments, in
the United States, where almost the sole institutional pro-
tection against administrative error or arbitrariness is such
an action, usually only great corporations or individuals who
F
are supported by large voluntary associations have been
able to carry through litigation. To rely upon such individual
actions as the primary means of policing · administrative
action in Africa is to rely upon what is nonexistent." (1)

G A pragmatic approach to social justice compels ns. to interpret
constitutional provisions, including those like Arts. 32 and 226, with
a view to see that effective policing of the corridors of power is
carried out by the court until other ombudsman airangements-a
problem with which Parliament has been wrestling for too long-
emerges. I have dwelt at a little length on this policy aspect and the
H court process because the learned Attorney General challenged the
petitioner's locus sta11di either qua worker or qita citizen to question
(I) Wisconsin Law Review, Vol. 1966 : 999 .•t p. 1065.

_._,,._ -,..,.-- ................ . .
FERTILIZER CORPN. v. UNION (Krishna Iyer, !.) . 71

in court the wrong doings of the public sector·although he maintained A
that what had been .done by the Corporation was both bona fide and
correct.
We certainly agree that judicial interference with the Adlmnis-
tration cannot be meticulous in our Montesquien system of separation
of powers. The conrt cannot usurp or abdicate, and the parameters ol B
I judicial review must be clearly defined and never exceeded. If the
Directorate of a Government company has acted fairly, even if it has
faltered in its wisdom, the court cannot, as a super-auditor, take the
Board of Directors to. task. This function is limited to testing whether
the administrative action has been fair and free from the taint of
unreasonableness and has substantially complied with the norms of c
'
procedure set for it by rul~, of public administration .
Assuming that the Government-company has acted mala fide, or
has dissipated: public funds, can a common man call into question in
a court the validity of the action by invocation of Arts. 32 or 226 of
the Constitution.? Here, we come up on the crucial issue of access to D
justice and the special limitations of Art. 32 which is the passport to
this Court.
We have no doubt that in a competition between courts and
streets as dispenser of justice, the rule of law must win the aggrieved
person for the law court and wean him from the lawless street. In
simple terms, locus standi must be liberalised to meet the challenges of E.
the times. Ubi just ibi remedium must be enlarged to embrace all
interests of pnblio-minded citizens or organisations with serious con-
cern for conservation of public resources and the direction and
correction of public power so as to promote justice in its triune facets.
Lord Scarman's warning in his Harnlyn Lectures lend strength to our y·
view.:
"I shall endeavour to show that .there are in the con-
temporary world challenges, social, political and economic,
which, if the system cannot meet them, will destroy it. These
challenges are not created by lawyers; they certainly cannot
/
be suppressed by lawyers : they have to be met either by dis-
carding or by adjusting the' legal system. Which is to be ?''.( 1)
Lest there should be misapprehension, we wish to keep the distinc-
tion clear between the fundamental right to enforce fundamental rights
' and the interest sufficient to claim relief under Art. 226 and even
under other jurisdictions. The learned Attorney General almost D
(I) English Law-The New Dimension-The Hamlyn Lectures by Sir Leslie
Scarman, 1974-Steve*-P· l.
72 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1981] 2 S.C.R.

A agreed, uuder J)1'essure .of compelling trends in the contemporary law
of procedure, that Art. 226 may probably enable the petitioner to seek
relief· if the facts suggested by the court hypothetically existed. Shri
A K. Sen also took up a similar position. I will put aside Art. 32 for
a moment and scan the right under Art. 226. There is nothing in the
provision (unlike under Art. 32) to define 'person aggrieved', 'stand-
'.B ing' or 'interest' that gives access to the court to seek redress.
\
The· argument is, who are you to ask about the wrong committed
or illegal act of the Corporation if you have suffered no personal
injury to property, body, mind or reputation? An officious busybody
picking up a stray dispute or idle peddlar of blackmail-litigation
.c; through abuse of the process of the court cannot be permitted to
pollute the court ins'trumen.tality, for private objectives. Public justice
is always and only at the service of public good, never the servant or
janitor of private interest or personal motive.
Law as I concei\'e it, i~ a social auditor and this audit function
can be put into action only when some one with real public interest
ignites the jurisdiction. We cannot be scared by the fear that all and
sundary will be litigation-happy and waste their time and money and
the time of the court through false and frivolous cases. In a society
where freedoms suffer from atrophy and activism is essential for parti-
cipative public justice, some risks have to be taken and more opportu-
nities opened for the public-minded, citizen to rely on the legal pro-
cess and not be repelled from it by narrow pendantry now surround-
ing locus standi.
Schwartz and H W.R. Wade wrote in Legal Control of Govern- ;
ment:
'F "Restrictive rules about standing are in general inimical
to a healthy system of a administrative law. If a plaintiff with
a good case is turned away, merely because be is not suffi-
ciently affected personally, that means that some government
agency is left free to violate the law, and that is contrary to
the public interest. Litigants are unlikely to expend their time
and money unless they have some real interest at stake. In
the rare cases where they wish to sue merely out of public
spirit, why should they be discouraged?"(')
They further observed :
"The problem of standing, or locus standi is inherent in
fl all legal systems . . . But· in the United States, perhaps
(I) Professors Bernard Schwartz and H.W.R. Wade, 0. C., in Legal Control
of Government (1972), p. 291.
''
FERTILIZER CORPN v. UNION (KrishlUI Iyer, !.) 73

because of the constitutional basis which the subject has A
acquired in federal law it can be discussed as a single topic .
.In Britain it is a thing of shreds and patches, made up of
various differing rules which apply to various different
remedies and procedures. It is a typical product of the untidy
system of remedies, each with its own technicalities, whi.ch
all British administrative lawyers would like to see B
reformed." (I)
We have no doubt that having regard to the conditions in Third
World countries, Cappelletti is right in his stress on the importance
of access :
"The right of effective access to justice' has emerged with c
the new social rights. Indeed, it is of paramount importance
among these new rights since, clearly, the enjoyment of tradi-
tional as well as new social rights. presupposes mechanisms
for their effective protection. Such protection, moreover, is
best assnred by a workable remedy within the framework
Qf the judicial system. Effective access to justice can thus be D
seen as the most basic requirement-the most basic 'human
right'-of a system which purports to guarantee legal
rights."(')
The need for a radical approach has been undr.rscored in New
Zealand by Black : E
". . . today it is unreal to suggest that a person looks to
the law solely to protect his interests in a narrow sense. It
is necessary to do no more than read the newspapers to see
the breadth of the interests that today's citizen expects the
law to protect-and he expects the court where necessary to F
provide that protection. He is interested in results, not pro-
cedural niceties."(')
India is an a fortiori case, especially as it suffers from the pathology
of mid. Victorian concepts about cause of action. The Australian Law
•
Reform Commission in its discussion paper No. 4 has considered the
pros and cons and strongly supported the wider basis for access to G
justice. Class-actions will activise the legal process where individuals
cannot approach the court for many reasons. I quote from the
Discussion Paper No. 4 : (')
(I) Ibid.'
(2) M. Cappelletti, Rabels Z 11976) 669 at 672.
(3) Black, "The Right to be Heard", New Zealand L. J., No. 4, 1977, 66. H
(4) The Law Reform Commission, Discussion Paper No. 4-Access to the Court
-1, Standing : Public Interest Suits, p. 4.
74 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1981] 2 S.C.R.

A "Widened standing rules may assist consumers in attain-
ing relevant injunctive or declaratory relief but they do not
assist in recovering losses inflicted by illegal trading practices,
nor do they threaten the illegal trader where he is mot hurt,
his pocketbook. The most potent legal instrument in that
regard so far devised is the modem class action, to some an
B 'engine of destruction', to others a mighty force for good.
Consider the New York Commissioner of Consumer Affairs
giving evidence before a United States Senate Committee in
1970.( 1)
'A federal class action law will have more impact on the
c market places of the nation than all the myraids of laws and
ordinances against fraud and deception which are hidden
away, in the statute books of the 50 States and their various
sub-divisions, put together. All these laws make fraud
illegal. But they have not made fraud unprofitable. Many of
these laws can only be invoked by administrative agencies,
D whicli long ago lost their concern for the consumer and
their appetite for action.
A Federal class action law ... will put the power to seek
justice in court where it belongs-beyond the reach of
campaign contributors, industry lobbyists, or Washington
lawyers-and it will put i)ower in the hands of the consumers
themselves and in the liands of their own lawyers, retained
by them to represent their interests alone.' "
Public interest litigation is part of the process of participate justice
and 'standing' in. Civil litigation of that pattern must have liberal
reception at the judicial doorsteps. The flood-gates argument has been
F
nailed by the Australian Law Reforms Commission :
"The idle and'. whimsical plaintiff, a dilettante who )..-
litigates for a lark, is a specter which haunts the legal
literature, not the courtroom. ( 2 )
A major expressed ·reason for limiting standing rights
G
is fear of a spate of actions brought by busybodies which
will unduly extend the resources of the courts. No argument
is easier put, none more difficult to rebut. Even if the fear be
justified it does not follow that present restrictions should
(1) Evidence of Mrs. Bess Myerson, Commr. of Consumer Affairs of the City
of New York, before the Co)lsumer Subcommittee of the U. S. Senate
B Committee on Commerce, No. 91-48, at 172.
(2) Prof. K. E. Scott : !'Standing in the Supreme Court : A Functional Analysis"
(1973) 86.
FcRTILlZER CORPN v. UNION (Krishna Iyer, J.) 75

remain. If proper claims exist it may be necessary to provide A
resources for their determination. However, the issue must
be considered.
. . . . Over recent years successive decisions of the
Uni!et! States Supreme Court have liberalised standing so as
to afford a hearing to any person with a real interest in the
relevant controversy. Surveying the result in 1973 Professor
Scott commented : ( 1)
'When the floodgates of litigation are opened to some new
class of controversy by a decision it is notable how rarely
one can discern the flood that the dissentors feared.
Professor Scott went on to point out that the liberalised c
standing rules had caused no significant increase in the
number of actions brought, arguing that parties will not
litigate at considerable personal cost unless they have a real
interest in a matter."
We agree with the conclusion of the Commission : D
"The moral, perhaps, applies; if the courts cannot, or
will not, give relief to people who are in fact concerned about
a matter then they will resort to self-held, with grave results
for other persons and the rule of law. Some may reply that
if there is no evidence of a great increase in numbers there E
is no evidence of need for enlarged standing rights. The reply
would overlook two considerations. One case may have a
dramatic effect on behaviour in hundreds of others; this is
the whole notion of the legal 'test case'. Secondly, the mere
exposure to possible action is likely to affect the behaviour
of persons who presently feel themselves immune from legal F
control".
In the Municipal Council, Ratlam, a bench of this Court observed:
•
" 'It is procedural rules' as this appeal proves, 'which
infuse life into substantive rights, which activate them lo
make them effective ' . . . . The truth is that a few profound G
issues of processual jurisprudence of great strategic signi-
ficance to our legal system face us and we must zero-in on
them as they involve problems of access to justice for the
people beyond the blinkered rules of 'standing' of British
Indian vintage. If the centre of gravity of justice is to shift, as
the Preamble to the Constitution manda~, from the ~di- H
(1) Op cit, 673.
6-1281 SCl/80
76 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1981] 2 S.C.R.

A tional individualism of locus standi to the community orienta-
tion of public interest litigation, these issues must be con-
sidered. In that sense, the case before us between the
Rat!am Municipality and the citizens of a ward, is a path-
finder in the field of people's involvement in the justicing
process, sans which as Prof. Sikes points the system may
B 'crumble under the burden of its own insensitibity'. . . . .
Our judicial system has been aptly described as follows :
Admirable though it may be, (it) is at once slow
and costly. It is a finished product of great beauty, but
entails lin immense sacrifice or' time, nioney and talent.
c
This 'beautiful' system is frequently a luxury; it tends to
give a high quality of justice only when, for one reason or
another, parties can surmount the substantial barriers which
it erects to most people and !o many types of claims.
Why drive common people to public interest action ?
D Where Directive Principles have found statutory expression
in Do's and Dont's the court will not sit idly by .... (1)
After all (Australian, 16 November, 1977) was right. We quote
as a concluding thought of benign import for us : -
E "Under a banner 'Easier Access to Courts of Law' the
Australian, 16 November 1977 declared :
'Perhaps-and it is only a perhaps-there was cirice some
justification for restricting access to the courts to prevent
their being bogged down in a morass of ineffectuallity. But
today's better informed, better educated, more literate and
more politically aware citizens should certainly not be barred
from the courts by tradition. The law can no longer be a
closed shop."

In the present case a worker, who, clearly, has an interest in the
G industry, brings this action regarding an alleged wrong-doing by the
Board of Management. Article 43A of the Constitution confers, in
principle, partnership status to workers in industry and we cannot,
therefore, be deterred by technical considerations of corporate person-
ality to keep out those who seek to remedy wrongs committed in the
management of public sector. Locus standi and justiciability are
,B sifferent issues, as I have earlier pointed out. This takes us to the
(1) Municipal Council, Rat/am v. Shrl Vardhichand and Ors.-S.L.P. (Crl.) No.
2856 of 1979-<lecided on July 29, 1980.

1•aa--llllrli 1R" - "'Irr -
-.i!IDilllilll"lll
FERTILIZER CORPN v. UNION (Krishna. Iyer, /;) 77

question of justiciability of questions like sale of public property by A
public bodies. Certainly, it is not part of the judicial process to examine
entrepreneurial activities to ferret out flaws. The couit i~ least equipped
for such oversights. Nor, indeed, is it a function of the judges in. our
constitutional scheme. We do not think: that the internal management,
business activity or institutional operation of public bodies can be
subjected to inspection by the Court. To do so, is incompetent and B
improper and, therefore, out of bounds. Nevertheless, the broad para-
meters of fairness in administration, bona. (ides in action, and the
fundamental rules of reasouable management of public business, if
breached, will become justiciable.

If a citizen is no more than a wayfarer or officious intervener
c
without any iuterest or concern beyond what belongs to any one of
the 660 million people of this country, the door of the court will not
be ajar for him. But he belongs to an organisation which has special
interest in the subject matter, if he has some concern deeper than that D
of a busybody, he cannot be told off at the gates, although whether
the issue raised by him is justiciable may still remain to be considered.
I, therefore, take the view that the present petition would clearly have
been permissible under Article 226. ( 1)

The learned Attorney General drew our atten\ion to Art. 32 and
cited decisions to support his contention that only the petitioner's E
fundamental rights could be agitated under that Article. As the rulings
now stand, he is right, although the question still survives as to
whether a worker's fundamental right under Art. 14 is not uffecl:ed
when arbitrary action of the enterprise in which he is employed has
an impact on his well-being.
F
The democratisation of judicial remedies which is the thrust of our
··-<. separate opinion, induces us to conclude with a quote : (2)
It was the boast of Augustus that he found Rome of
brick and left it of marble. But how much nobler will be the
sovereign's boast when he shall have it to say that he found
law dear and left it cheap; found it a sealed book and left G
it a living letter; found it the patrimony of the rich and left
it the inheritance of the poor; found it the two-edged sword
of craft and oppression and left it the staff of hon:esty and
the shield of innocence.
(!) see judgments of Krishna Iyer, J. in [1975] 2 SCC 702 and [1976] 2 SCC 0
291 ;
(2) Henry Peter Brougham : Nieman Reports, April 1956.
78 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1981] 2 S.C.R.

A Having sought to illumine the half-lit zone of access jurisprudence,
·we wish to make it clear that we are not dealing with the likely appli ·
cation Art. 19(1) (f) or of Art. 14 which have been raised in the
present case because the learned Chief Justice has held that on the
merits the action of the Corporation is above board. The question
which we reserve may well be considered when an appropriate
B occasion arises.
N. K. A. Petition dismissed.