Created byFuzzy Cloud

Supreme Court of India

REFERENCE UNDER ARTICLE 317(1) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, FOR INQUIRY AND REPORT ON THE CHARGES LEVELED AGAINST DR. H.B. MIRDHA,CHAIRMAN ORISSA PSCversus.

Citation
2005 INSC 336
Decided
5 August 2005
Disposal
Hearing Adjourned

Summary

The Supreme Court was asked to consider a reference under Article 317(1) of the Constitution, seeking an inquiry into alleged misbehaviour by Dr. H.B. Mirdha, Chairman of the Orissa Public Service Commission. The respondent raised a preliminary objection questioning the maintainability of the reference, specifically whether the President’s action required prior advice from the Council of Ministers under Article 74. The Court sought clarification from the Union of India on whether such advice was tendered before the reference was made. It also framed several issues concerning the applicability and timing of Article 74 in relation to a reference under Article 317(1). The matter was adjourned to allow the Union of India to furnish the required information and for further arguments on the framed issues.

Issues considered

  • Whether Article 74 of the Constitution, requiring the President to act on the advice of the Council of Ministers, applies to a reference made by the President under Article 317(1).
  • If Article 74 applies, at what stage must the advice be given?
  • Whether the initiation of a reference under Article 317(1) must be preceded by such advice.
  • Whether Article 74 becomes relevant only after the Supreme Court’s inquiry report is received and a decision on removal is to be taken.

Legislation cited

Subjects

Article 317Article 74Presidential referencePublic Service CommissionPreliminary objectionMaintainabilityCouncil of Ministers adviceInquiry

Judgment

A   REFERENCE UNDER ARTICLE 317(1) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
    INDIA, FOR INQUIRY AND REPORT ON THE CHARGES LEVELED
       AGAINST DR. H.B. MIRDHA, CHAIRMAN, ORISSA PUBLIC
                      SERVICE COMMISSION.

                                 AUGUST 5, 2005
B
                 {R.C. LAHOTI, CJ., D.M. DHARMADHIKARI
                          AND G.P. MA THUR, JJ.]

         Constitution of India, 1950 :
c        Article 74 and 317(1 )-Reference for inquiry into alleged misbehaviour·
    of Chairman of Orissa Public Service Commission-Court asking Union of
    India to supply information and clarify it, before making the Reference to the
    Court, there was any advise by Council ofMinisters tendered to the President
    of India within the meaning of Article 74-Matter to be listed later.
D
         ADVISORY JURISDICTION : Reference No. 1 of 2003.

         Reference under Article 317( I) of the Constitution of India, for Inquiry
    and Report on the charges leveled against Dr. H.I~. Mirdha, Chairman, Orissa
    Public Service Commission.
E
        Mohan Parasaran, Additional Solicitor General, Gaurav Agrawal, P.
    Parmeswaran for Union of India.

         Ms. Kiran Suri, Himanshu Buttan and Mali Santosh for Respondent.

F        Mrs. Kirti Renu Mishra for Public Service Commission.

         Raj Kumar Mehta for State of Orissa.

         The following Judgment of the Court was delivered :

G         This is a Reference under Article 317(1) of the Constitution of India
    initiated by the President of India calling for an inquiry into the alleged
    misbehaviour of Dr. H.B. Mirdha, the then Chairman of the Orissa Public
    Service Commission. Before the Court closed for summer vacation, the
    learned counsel appearing in the case were heard on the preiiminary objection
H   raised on behalf of the respondent, laying challenge to the maintainability of
                                         370
       REFERENCE UNDER ARTICLE 317(1) OF lliE CONSTITIJTION OF TNOIA. FOR INQUIRY AND REPORT ON   371
    THE CHARGES LEVELED AGAINST OR. H.B. MIRDHA, CHAIRMAN. ORJSSA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

the Reference itself. Orders were reserved. However, we find some essential                             A
factual information missing, on availability whereof, we would like to hear
all the learned counsel on the necessary aspects of the preliminary objection,
reflected in the issues which we frame hereunder.

      First, on point of fact we would like the Union of India to supply the
information and clarify if, before making the reference to this Court, was
                                                                                                        B
there any advise by the Council of Ministers tendered to the President oflndia
within the meaning of Article 74 of the Constitution?

      On such information being made available in three weeks, we would
like to hear the learned Artorney General for India as also all the learned                             C
counsel appearing in the case on the following issues :

      (!) Whether the applicability of Article 74 of the Constitution is
attracted to a Reference made by the President under Article 317(1) of the
Constitution.?
                                                                                                        D
       (2) (a) If 'yes', at what stage?

     (b) Whether the initiation of Reference by the President under Article
317(1) must be precedent under Article 317(1) must be preceded by the
advise of the Council of Ministers under Article 74?
                                                                                                        E
     (c) Whether the applicability of Article 74 is attracted to Article 317
only when the Report ·on Inquiry held by the Supreme Court has been
received by the President and a decision for removal or otherwise is to be
taken by the President.
                                                                                                        F
       List after four weeks.

R.P.                                                                           Matter adjourned.


Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "Article 317"Sign in to search

For a digitally signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's own website. Only the court can issue one.