HARSHARAN VERMAversusCHARAN SINGH AND ORS.

    16


A                            HARSHARAN VERMA

                                            v.

                         CHARAN SINGH AND ORS.
B
                                 November 19, 1984                                       '
           [Y. V. CHANDRA.CRUD, C.J, AND E.S. VENKATARAMIAH, J.)

           Con1titution of India 1950, Article 75.-Prime Mi11ister-Co11tinuance in
    office as head of Caretaker Government-Fresh oath-Taking of-Whether
c   necessary.

           Practice and Procedure-Academic importance-Question of-Not to be
    -decided by Supreme Court.

          The appellant in his writ petition to the High C.-onrt challenged the conti~
D    nuance in office of Shri Charan Singh as the Prin1e Minister contending that
     Shri Charan Singh failed to seek the mandate of the Lok Sab!la within three
    weeks after assuming the office of the Prime Minister as directed by the President
    of India, that instead of "fac,ing the House" he submitted the resignation of his
    Government on August 20, 1979, and that his continuation in office thereafter as
    a caretaker Prime Minister without taking a fresh oath of office was unconsti·
    tutional.
E
            The High Court dismissed the writ petition, but granted a certificate of
    fitness to appeal to this Court.

           Dismissing the Appeal,

            HELD: t. The continuation in office of Shri Charan Singh and his
F    ministers was not unconstitutional. [71 G]

           2. It is not the practice of this Court to decide questions of mere acade·
     mic importance. The issues raised by the appellant are no longer Jive. [71 El
                                                                                             •
           3. Our Constitution knows no such hybrid thing as a "Prime Minister
    subject to a condition or defeasance''. Conditions imposed by the President
    may create considerations of political n1ora1ity or conventional propriety but not
G   of constitutional validity. [71 FJ

          CIVIL APPELLATE JURiSDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3491 of 1979.
          On appeal by Certificate from the Judgment and Order dated
H   10.12.79 of the Allahabad High Court in W.P. No. 2402of1979.
                            '

              HARSHRAN VERMA v. CHARAN SINGH (Chandrachud, J.)            71


I-·        Appellant in person.

           Girish Chandra and R.N. Poddar for the respondents.

           The Order of the Court was delivered by
                                                                                   A




            The appellant had filed a writ petition in the High Court of
      Allaliabad challenging the continuance in office of Shri Charan Singh
                                                                                   B
      as the Prime Minister and Shri S.N. Kacker as Minister of Law,
      Justice and Company Affairs. Stated briefly, the contention of the
      appellant is that Shri Charan Singh failed to seek the mandate of the
      Lok Sabha within three weeks after assuming the office of the Prime-
      Minister as directed by the President of India, that instead of "facing
>
      the House" he submitted the resignation of his Government on                 c
       August 20, 1979 and that his continuation in office therefore as a
      caretaker Prime Minister without taking a fresh oath of office y,as
      unconstitutional. The writ petition was dismissed by the High Court
      by a judgment dated December 10, 1979 but it has granted a
      Certificate of fitness to the appellant to file this appeal.
                                                                                   D
             It is a well-known fact of history that the Government of Shri
      Charan Singh was in office for a very brief spell. It fell s0on after it
      assumed office, indeed, too soon the issues raised by the appellant
      are no longer live and it is not the practice of this Court to decide
      questions of more academic importance. We must, however, hasten
      to add that the High Court is right in its view that Shri Charan             E
      Singh's appointment as the Prime Minister could not be said to be
      conditional upon his seeking a mandate of the Lok Sabha. Our
      Constitution knows no such hybrid thing as a "Prime Minister
       subjected to a condition of defeasance". Conditions imposed by the
       President may create considerations of political morality or conven-
       tional propriety but not of constitutional validity. The High Court         F
       is also right that it was not necessary for Shri Charan Singh and his
       ministers to take a fresh oath after being called upon by the Presi-
       dent to continue in office as a caretaker Government. Thus, the
       continuation in office of Shri Charan Singh and his ministers was
       not unconstitutional.
                                                                                       G
             For these reasons, the appsal is dismissed.




       N.V.K.                                                .A.pptal dismissed.