Holding

The Court held that the trial judge's remarks were merely adverse comments, not findings of fact, and that the refusal to admit additional evidence was justified.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined two Special Leave Petitions arising from a writ petition that alleged tampering of MD (Gynaecology) examination grade sheets to favour the daughter of the then Chief Minister of Maharashtra. The trial judge had held that the tampering was done by Dr. Rawal at the behest of the Chief Minister and made adverse comments to that effect. The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court held that those remarks were only adverse comments, not findings of fact, and refused to admit additional evidence on similar‑fact grounds. The Supreme Court affirmed the Division Bench, stating that the remarks did not amount to a factual finding and that the refusal to admit belated additional evidence was proper. Consequently, both appeals and the application for additional evidence were dismissed.

Issues considered

The trial judge's adverse remarks – whether they constitute a finding of fact or merely a comment.
Whether the Division Bench correctly characterized the remarks as adverse comments and not findings of fact.
Whether the High Court was justified in refusing to admit additional evidence (similar‑fact evidence) at the appellate stage.
Whether the allegation of tampering of grade sheets was sufficiently proved.
The burden of proof for allegations of mala fide against a public official.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedures. Order XIX Rule 3
Constitution of Indias. Article 136, s. Article 226
Indian Evidence Act, 1872s. Section 114, s. Section 3

Subjects

admission of additional evidencesimilar fact evidenceadverse comment vs finding of facttampering of examination resultspublic interest litigationmala fide allegationsburden of proofArticle 136Article 226Code of Civil Procedure Order XIXIndian Evidence Act Section 114

Judgment

SHIV AJIRAO NILANGEKAR PATIL
A v..

DR. MAHESH MADHAV GOSA VJ & ORS. AND VICE VERSA

DECEMBER 9, 1986

B (R.S. PATHAK, SABY ASACHI MUKllARJI ANDS. NATARAJAN, JJ.)

Evidence-Admission of addiiional · evidence, principle of- 1'
Admissibility of evidence as to "similar fact"-Ajfidavits evidence-Value of

Code of Civil Procedure, Order XIX Ru/e3 Malafides-Allegation of
C malafides against men in power-Court/ duty to view such allegations vis-a- £
vis purity in public life, explained. -,a
Post-graduate medical examinatwn in Maharashtra-A/legation of
manipulation in the grade sheets of M.D. (Gynae) examination to clear the
candidate, a daughter of the Chief Minister of Maharashtra-Adverse
D remarks against the Chief Minister, whether justified as afinding offact or as a
comment based on no evidence-Judic.'al pronouncements and duty of the
Judges.

Dr. Mahesh Madhav Gosavi app.,llant in CA 4453/86 and respondent
in CA 4452/86 was a failed candidate at the M.D. examination in the
E speciality of Gynaecology and Obstetric.1 held in the year 1985. He filed a writ
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the High Court of
Bombay challenging the results of the 1\1.D. examination held in November'
85. He alleged that favouritism was shown by one Dr. Rawal who went to the
extent of tampering with grade shee1s of the examinees so as to clear
unsuccessful candidates and in particular Smt. Chandrakala Patil daughter of •
f the Chief Minister of Maharashtra app.,llant in CA 4452/86 and respondent
in cross appeal CA 4453/86 . .In support of the writ petition alleging how the
malpractice took place, he filed an affidavit (hearsay evidence) of one Dr.
Manikant Mishra, who is supposed to have heard certain talks that took place
between Dr. Rawal and Smt. Chandrnkala Patil at Dr. Rawals' Chambers
and that what the deponent heard came to be proved by the M.D. (Gynae)
G results in which one Dr. Smita Thakl<ar and Smt. Chandrakala Patil who
could not clear the said examination thrice were shown to have passed. It was
alleged that the tampering of the grade sheets were done by Dr. Rawal at the
behest of the appellant in C.A. 4452/86. The said allegations were refuted by
the appelldnt Shivaji Rao Patil, Smt. <Chandrakala Patil, his daughter, Dr.
H Rawal and another Dr. Shah on oath by filing their affidavits. The

45B
S.N. PATIL v. DR. M.M. GOSAVI 459

~ respondent, though he had verified his petition, did not disclose the so called A
reliable source of information derived by him. (about the allegations made
against the appellant & others.

The learned Single Judge held: (i) that the evidence of Respondent
Madhav Gosavi as well as of Dr. Mishra were unsatisfactory and unreliable:
(ii) that it was impossible to place any reliance on the evidence of Dr, Mishra as B
- it was not known how he came to contact Dr. Gosavi or why he did not choose
~ to file affidavit tili 28.2.1986 when the appellant Patil had alredy filed his
affidavit on 26.1.86; (iii) that the allegation and the averments made in
\ paragraph 14-of the writ petition were wholly unsatisfactory and insufficient
• -~ - because the Respondent-petitioner had not disclosed from whom he derived
them; (iv) that there was tampering with grade sheets ofRespondents4 to.IS C
by Dr. Rawal; and (v) that in the facts and circumstances of this it could
-, reasonably be inferred that the alteration was done at the behest of the
appellant in CA 4452/86 and her daughter Chandrakala. 1'.his was because
Dr. Rawal was an experienced examiner, not young or immature and a person
like him would not proceed to do a criminal act and tamper with the record of
the examination on his own with a view merely to please ihe people in power. D
The risk involved In what Dr. Rawal had done was so enormou~ that it was
difficult to conceive that he did it on his own. Accordingly he allowed tlJe writ
petition, passed some structures against Dr. Rawal and the appellant in CA
4452/86 and gave certain directions about examination ofl2 other candidates
whose results were also affected by the conduct of Dr. Rawal.
E
An application made before the Judge for adducing certain additional
evidence was rejected. After the judgment the Vice Chancellor and the Chief
"' Minister resigned from their posts.

Three appeals, No. 214/86 by Dr. Rawal No. 215/86 by Dr.
. Chandrakala Patil and No. 216/86 by the appellant Shivaji Rao Patil, were F
heard and disposed of by the Division Bench consisting of the Acting Chief
Justice Ka11ia and Shah J. of the Bombay High Court on 16th June, 1986. So
far as appeal No. 216 ofl986 is concerned, according to the Division Bench; (i)
there was no direct evidence that the alterations in the grades of Chandrakala
Patil were made at the instance of the appellant; (ii) the reasonings of the trial
Judge in coming to the conclusion that respondents No. 3 and 4 the original G
petition were responsible for getting Dr. Rawal to alter the grades was based
on certain contingencies and were too tenuous for the conclusion based .on
such reasoning to amount to a positive finding; (iii) Merely because
respondent No. 3 to the original petition held a position of great power and
would have been happy to see that his daughter had passed the M.D.
examination, it was diffic~lt to conclude as a ~nding of fact that he must have H
460 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] I S.C.R.

A influenced Dr. Rawal to alter the gracles of his daughter; (iv) it was true that a
seasoned examiner like Dr. Rawal would not have taken the risk involved in
altering the grades except under a gri,at pressure or pursuation, but it cannot
he rwed out the pOSSI'bility of various motives which might have induced Dr.
Rawal to take the risk of altering the grades; (v) however in all probability Dr.
Rawal would not have acted unles:1 he had made him assured that the
B appellant Shivaji Rao Patil was hehin d the person who pursuaded him to alter
the grades; (vi) that when allegation of this type is made against anyone
holding a position of prestige and power, it was necessary that the evidence
should be closely examined before holding such allegation well founded.
Therefore the Bench observed that the remarks made against the appellant.
Nilangekar Patil cannot he supporteil as conclusions arrived at against him
C but these can he regarded as adverse comments and not finding of fact and
such comments were not wholly unju:1ified in the facts of this case. However,
the Division Bench refused to entertai10 an application to introduce additional
evidence as part of the claim of public interest litigation. Hence the appeal No.
CA 4452/86 by Nilangekar Patil agai.ost the adverse comments were allowed
to remain and there was a cross appeal 4453/86 by Dr. Madhav Gosavi
D against refusal to accept additional e•ndence.

Dismissing the appeals by spec:ial leave, the Court,

HELD: I.I The basic principle of admission of additional evidence is
that the person seeking the admission of additional evidence should be able to J
E establish that with the best efforts such additional evidence could not have
been adduced at _the first instance. Secondly the party affected by the
admission of additional evidence should have an opportunity to rebut such
additional evidence. Thirdly that additional evidence was relevant for the
determination of the issue. [474G]

F Here, the additional evidence sought to be introduced mainly consist of --,l
alleged instances when the appellant on previous occassions had in respect of fl
some criminal proceedings and other matters pending used his influence to ·~
drop those proceedings. Applying the principle as to admission of "sinoilar fact
evidence" it must be held that the allegations of the alleged conduct of the
appellant In similar cases would not be a safe basis upon which to admit
G additional evidence in this case having regard to the issues involved and nature
of the issues involved in these matters ard at the stage when these were sought to
be introduced. [474 H, 476 E]

Mood Music Publishing Co. Ltd. v. De Wolfe Ltd., [1976] 1 All E.R.
H 763 @ 766, quoted with approval.
S.N. PATIL v. DR. M.M . .GOSAVI 461

2. The mere fact that several infirmities were noticed in the affidavit of A
Dr. Mishra upon which the original petitioner Dr. Gosavi based bis own·
petition could col lead to the argument that the entertainment of the petition
itse!f was wrocg. The allegations made in the petition disclose a lamentable
state cf affairs in one of the premier universities oflndia. The petitioner might
have moved in his private interest but enquiry into the conduct of the B
. examiners of the Bombay University in one of the highest medical degrees was
a matter of public interest. Such state· of affairs having been brought to the
notice of tbe court, it was the duty Of the COUI j to the public that the truth and
the validity of the allegations made be inquired into. It was in furtherance of
public interest that an enquiry into the state of affairs of public institution '.
becomes necessary and 'private litigation assumed the character of public C
· interest litigation and such an inquiry c;:nn'.ot be avoided if it is necessary and
essential for the administration of justice.[477F, 477G-478A)

3.1 It is true that exercise of the power under Article· 136 of the
Constitution is discretionary. There is no question in this case of giving any
clean chit to the appellant hi the first appeal. It leaves a great deal of suspicion D
that tampering was done to please Shri Patil or at bis behest. It is true that
there is no direct evidence. It is also true that there is no evidence to link him up
with tampering. Tampering is established. The relationship is established. The
reluctance to face a public enquiry is also apparent. Apparently Shri Patil,
though holding a public office does not believe that "ceaser's wife must be
above suspicion". The erstwhile Chief Minister in respect of his conduct did E
not wish or invite an enqlliry to be conducted by a body nominated by the
Chief Justice of the High Court. The facts disclose a sorry state of affairs.
Attempt was made to pass .th• daughter of the erstwhile chief Minister who
had failed thrice before by tampering the record. The person who did it was an
employee of the Corporation. It speaks of a sorry state of affairs and though
there is no distinction between comment and a finding and there is no legal F
basis for such a comment. [48~A- DJ

3.2 The court cannot be oblivious that there has been a steady decline of
public standards or public morals and public morale. It is necessary to cleanse
public life in this country along with br even before cleaning the physical
. atmosphere. The pollution in the values and standards iS an equally grave G
menaee as the pollution of the environment. Where such sit.;ations "l"Y out ·the
Courts should not and cannot remain mute and dumb. [4~ El

. 3.3 Where allegations of malafide were made, the Court must be
•
cautious. It is true that allegation of malafides and of improper motives on the •
part of those in power are frequently made and their frequency has increased H
462 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] I S.C.R.

A in recent times. In this task which is cast on the courts, it will be conducive to T
have disposal and consideration of them if those against whom allegations are
made came forward to place before th'i court either the denials or their version
of the matter so that the courts might be in a position to judge whether the
onus that lay upon those who make al legations of mala tides on the part or'the
B authorities had been discharged in proving it. It is true that the basis of the
allegations being the affidavit of Dr. Mishra was considered to be thoroughly .,...
unreliable. In ibis case there was "pecilic and categorical denial by the '
erstwhile Chief Minister that tampering was done at his behest. Therefore,
while the court should be conscious to deal with the allegations of ma la fide or
cast aspirations on holders of high office and power, the court cannot ignore
the probabilities arising from proven circumstances. [478 B. F-G) ·-\
c
C.S. Rawjee & Ors. v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport
Corporation, [1964) 2 SCR 330, referred to. 'r-

3.4 Where evidence was adducl!d by affidavits, such affidavits might be
properly verified either on knowledi:e or from sources. Here it is true that
0
undoubtedly the affidavit and the petition were defective, but the court has
taken cognizance of the matter and certain inferences followed from the
inherent nature of facts apparent from the facts brought before the court.
[479A. D]
The Barium Chemicals Ltd. & Anr. v. The Company Law Board &
E Ors., [1966) Supp. SCR 311; PadMabriti Dasi v. Rasik Lal Dhar, !LR .A
XXXVII Calcutta 259; The State ofBombay v. Purushottam Jog Naik, [1952)
SCR 674; E.P. Royappa v. State of famil Nadu & Anr., [1974) 2 SCR 348;
Tara Chand Khatri v. Municipal Co1poration of Delhi & Ors.. [1977) 2 SCR
198: and Sukhvinder Pal Bipan Kumar v. State of Punjab & .Ors., [1982] 2
SCR 31; Seth Gulabchand v. Seth Kudi/al & Ors., [1966) 3 SCR 623 at 629:
F Jarat Kumari Dassiv. Bissesur, ILR ~-9 Cal. 245: 16 C.W .N. 265; Faja Singh v.
Chaichoo Singh. AIR 1940 Patna 2:u .at 203, referred to.
The State of VIiar Pradesh v. Mohammad Nairn, [1964] 2 SCR 363.
Vineet Kumar v. Mangal Sain Wadhera. AIR 1985 SC 817; The Bank of India
& Ors.. v. iamesetji A.H. Chiney and Messrs. Chinoy and Co., AIR 1950 PC
G 90; Sri Harasingh Charan Mohanty v. Sh. Surendra Mohanty, [1974) 3 SCC
680; Niranjan Patnaik v. Shashibh.shan Kar and Anr., [1985] 2 SCC 569,
distinguished.

'CIVIL APPELLATE JURIS:)JCT!ON: Civil Appeal Nos. 4452-53 of
H 1986
S.N. PATIL v.' DR. M.M. GOSAVI [MUKHARJI, J.] 463

From the Judgment and Order dated 16.6.1986 of the Bombay High A
Court in Appeal No. 216 of 1986.

D.R. Dhanuka, V.M Tarkunde, and Dr. L.M. Singhvi, Pramod
Swarup, Milind Sathe, P.N. Gupta, P.C. Srivastava, U.S. Prasad, A.M.
Singhvi, C. Mughopadhaya, Raian Karanjawala, Mrs. Manik Karanjawala,
Hardeep S. Anand, Ejaz Moqbool, S. Radhakrishnan and Surya Kant for the B
appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

SABYASACHI MUKHARJl,_J. These two special leave petitions arise
out of the decision of the Bombay High Court in the appeal No. 216 of .1986. c
Leave as asked for is granted in both and appeals arising therefrom are disposed
of by this judgment.

The first appeal was filed by the appellant Shivajirao Nilangekar Patil
who was at the relevant time the Chief Minister of the State Maharashtra and
the second one was filed by Dr. Mahesh Madhav Gosavi, the applicant in the D
original writ petition out of which appeal ultimately came to the Division Bench
of the Bombay High Court resulting in Civil Appeal No. 216 of 1986.

The controversy in this case centres rouRd the ooRduct, if any, of the
appellant in the first appeal in the M.D. Theory examination in th_e discipline
of Gynaecology· and Obstetrics held by the University of Bombay on 14th to E
17th October, 1985. In that subject, the practical examination was held by the_
University at K.E.M. Ho~pital, Bombay. This is a well-known hospital in
Bombay and we are told that it is run by the Municipality. The total number of
candidates registered for the examination was 52 of which 5 remained absent.
One Dr. Mahesh Madhav Gosavi, original petitioner, who was at the relevant
time Assistant Medical Officer of K.E.M. Hospital, Bombay was the F
petitioner. He and Smt. Dr. Chandrakala Patil alias Dawale, a Junior
·Assistant Medical Qfficer in th_e said K.E.M. Hospital, Bombay, who was
respondent No. 4 to.the original petition and one Dr. Mrs. Smita Thakkar
who was respondent No. 5 were three candidates amongst others who had
appeared for the examination. One Dr. M.Y. Rawal was the head of the
Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics in the said hospital and was the G
convener of the Board for the said examination. Respondent No. 4 of the
original petition, Smt. Chandrakala Patil is the daughter of the appellant, the
erstwhile Chief Minister. of Maharashtra. The appellant was at th.e relevant
time the Chief Minister of Maharashtra.

On 15th November, 1985, a circular·was issued by the University of H
464 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] I S.C.R.

A Bombay conv.ening a meeting of local examiners for the finalisation of M.D.
results an 18th November, 1985. On the said 18th November, 1985, the
meeting was attended only by Dr. Rawal as Dr. Mukherjee, another co-
examiner was not available at Bombay. On 30th November, 1985 the result of
M.D. examination was declared. Out ofthe47 candidates who had appeared
for the examination, 34 candidates were declared successful including Dr.
B Chandrakala Patil alias Dawale and Dr. Mrs. Smita Thakkar. The petitione,r,
Dr. Gosavi was declared to have failecl.
'
Upon these, a petition was filed by Dr. Gosavi under article 226 of the
Constitution of India in the High Court of Bombay. •

C Our attention was drawn to the foct that in the affidavit in support of the
petition one Dr. Manikant Mishra had stated that he had approached Dr.
Rawal to find out whether his wife had c.ppeared in the said M.D. examination
and it was alleged that on this occasi ~n he had over-heard certain alleged
conversation between Dr. Rawal and S mt. Chandrakala Patil, daughter of the
Chief Minister. It transpired later that Mrs. Kalpna Misra wife of the said
D Manikant Misra was not even registered as a candidate.

In the petition under article 226 of the Constitution filed before the High
Court of Bombay on 16th January, 1986 Dr. Gosavi challenged the results
declared in the said examination. The retitioner had claimed that he had been
working as a junior Assistant Medical Officer and that he had done his
E housemanship in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology at K.E.M.
Hospital Respondent No. 2 i.e. Dr. Rawal was the Head of the Department of
the same. It was further the· case of the petitioner that due to some reasons the
petitioner had no good terms with the said respondent No. 2. The petitioner
had passed the MBBS examination i•1 April, 1981 and after completion of
internship got registration for M.D. (Obstetrics and Gynaecology) in June,
F 1982. It was further the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had completed
all the requirements and conditions for appearing for the M.D. examination.
The petitioner stated that the University had declared examination
programme and the petitioner theredter had appeared for the said M.D.
examination in the month of October/November, 1985.

G There are several allegations made by the petitioner about the
irregularities and it was further alleged, inter alia, that the grade sheets were .
manipulated and tampered with as a result of which the said Dr. Chandrakala
Patil and Dr. Smita Thakkar were pa ;sed by respondent N o.2 Dr. Rawal at
the instance and behest of respondent no. 3 in that petition, the appellant in the
H first appeal, being the Chief Minister of Maharashtra at the relevant time. He
prayed that the record of grade sheet mbmitted to the University of Bombay
S.N. PATIL v. DR. M.M. GOSAVI [MUKHARJI, J.] 465

by all the four examiners of M.D. in Obstetrics and Gynaecology A
examination, necessary papers and rules and regulations, should be produced
and to set aside the result of the M.D. examination to the extent that those
students who had secured P minus grade be disqualified. It was further asked
to declare those studerits who secured upto any number of P minus to be
pa.sed. A prayer was made in the writ petition filed in the High Court for .B
7 producing grade sheets.

The petitioner incidentally verified the petition stating that the contents
of paragraphs 1 to 22 and paragraphs 24 to 30 were true to his own knowledge
while various other relevant paragraphs were verified as information received
from reliable sources but the source was not disclosed. In these circumstances
the petitioner claimed that the results declared in respect 6f some of the C
candidates declared failed should have been declared passed. The allegations
had been made against the appellant in paragraphs 14 and 25 of the petition. In
paragraph 14 it was alleged that after these irregularities came to light, the
petitioner in the original petition had started enquiring as to the way in which
respondent No. 2 had committed these irregularities. The petitioner thereafter D
learnt that one Sree P.K. Shah who happened to be a good friend of Dr. M.Y.
Rawal, respondent No. /
2 in the original petition and also.
happened to be a
good friend ofrespondent No. 4 as they were together as the assistant medical
officers at K.E.M. Hospitai Bombay. The petitioner also learnt that the said
Dr. P.K. Shah and Dr. M.Y. Rawal though not permitted by Rules and
Regulations had been practising in Zaverl Clinic for Dr. C.L. Zaveri, since E
long time, and thus they becam_e close friends. It is also learnt that on behalf of
Dr. (Mrs.) Chandrakala Patil, who is the daughter of erstwhile thief Minister
of Maharashtra the said P.K. Shah met respondent No. 2 and requested him
that Dr. (Mrs.) Chandrakala Patil had appeared several times for M.D.
Examination (Obs. & Gyn.) but could not get through and therefore she
should be shown some favour. It was learnt that the respondent No. 2
F
informed the said Dr. P.K. Shah that he would definitely favour Dr. Mrs.
Chandrakala Patil if she failed, provided the Chief Minister himself phoned
him personally. The respondent No. 2 also told the said Dr. P.K. Shah that he
would come to know about the result only after the submission of the grade
sheet to the University because thereafter only one would know the position
with regard to the names of the students who have failed and till that time he G
would not know. It was further stated that it was learnt that the respondent
No. 2 also informed the said Dr. P.K. Shah that he would take the risk only if
the Chief Minister gave him a teleph,one ring otherwise he would not. It was
alleged that the respondent No. 3 in the original petition and the appellant
herein after receiving this message from the respondent No. 4 and from Dr.
P.K. Shah accordingly contacted respondent No. 2 and requested him to H
favour his daughter.
466 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] I S.C.R.

A In paragraph 25 of the petition'. the petitioner stated as follows:

"The petitioner states that on the basis of information from
reliable source, the petitioner has made allegations on Chief
. Minister of Maharashtra, therefore, he has been made·
,... respondent
. No. 3. in this writ petition.•
.B
These were the only allegations upon which the petition was factually
based. The necessary verification has been set out hereinbefore. The appellant
Shri Shivajirao Nilengekar Patil filed an affidavit denying the allegations in
paragraphs 14 and 25 of the application stating that he had played no part in ·
the said examination as alleged or otherwise. It was also stated in the aforesaid
c affidavit that the petitioner has not disclosed.the 'so-called' reliable sources of
information. No affidavit was filed by the petitioner himself.. The alleged
source of. information was not disclosed at any time. As mentioned
hereinbefore an affidavit was filed by one Dr. Manikant Mishra on 28th
February, 1986 in support of the allegations. Further affidavit was sought to.
be tendered on behalf of the petitioner to the learned single judge regarding
D certain additional facts after the final hearing had started before the learned
single judge of the High_ Court of Bombay. It may be mentioned as a matter of
historical .record that Dr. M.S. Gore, Vice-Chancellor. of University of
Bombay _resigned ..

The learned single judge by his. judgment held that the evidence of the
E . peiitioner as well as of Dr. Misra were unsatisfactory and unreliable.
Reference was made to the submissions of the petitioner's counsel relying
, under section 114 of the Evidence Act. In para 18 of the judgment it was held
that it could be reasonably inferred that altering and tampering of the grade-
. sheets we~e done by Dr. Rawal at the behest of respo!'dents No.. 3 and 4. On
·1th March, 1986 the day after the judgment, the appellant Shivajirao ---r
· . F Nilangekar Patil resigned as the C.hief Minister of State·of Maharashtra in
· view of the Judgment. It may be mentioned that on or after 14th April, 1986.
'
certain affidavits were sought to be filed on behalf of the petitioner in pending
appeals purporting to rely upon certain allegations in writ petition No. 1709 of ·
1985 filed by Sub-Inspector Lambe challenging the order of transfer and also
an article ·which had appeared in INDIAlfODAY.
G
The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court rejected the prayer to
adduce the additional evidence. We have perused the nature of the additional
· .. - evidence which were sought io be adduced as is apparently from the special
.leave application by Dr. Gosav~ the original petitioner in the writ petition and
the respondent in the first appeal herein. These deal with the alleged
H involvement of the 'erstwhile Chief Minister of Maharasthra in the matter of
S.N. PATIL v. DR. M.M. GOSAVi [MUKHARJI, J.] 467

the careers of his son, his son-ih-law and in respect of transfer of one Inspector A
Lambe. As the additional evidence were not admitted and the appellant in the
first appeal herein had no opportunity to deal with the same, it would not be
fair to take these allegations into consideration. But these if true make dismal
reading and give a sordid picture of the state of administration prevailing at
that time in the State of Maharashtra. But as the High Court did not admit
these, perhaps beca·use these were belated and perhaps would have B
unnecesserily prolonged the trial and were not directly connected with the
immediate issues before the High Court, this Court in the exercise of its
jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution would not interfere with the
decision of non-admission of these additional evidence and say no more.

On 16th June, 1986, the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in C
appeal No. 216 of 1986 delivered judgment holding in para 35 of the judgment
that the conclusion arrived at against Shri Nilangekar Patil was to be regarded
merely as an adverse comment and not as a finding of fact. To that extent the
finding of the learned single judge was upset. The special appeal has been
preferred by the original petitioner against the appellant challenging the
findings respectively. In the·appeal by the original petitioner an affidavit had D
been filed in this case claiming the right to adduce additional evidence.

The controversy before this court is rather narrow--namely; was there
justification for the remarks made by the learned trial judge against the
appellant Patil iri his judgment to the extent that manipulations in the grade-
sheets of M.D. examination was done at the behest of the appellant, the then E
Chief Minister of Maharashtra to help respondent No. 4 to pass the M.D.
examination can the same be justified either as a finding of fact or as a
comment? In order to consider the same must be examined in little detail.

"Something is r.otten ·in the State of De~mark" sensed Marce11l1s in
SeeneV of Act I in Shakespeare's Hamlet. It can well be lamented that there F ·
was something rotten in once. premier and prestigious University of Bombay:
as the facts reveal. Justice Pendse of. the Bombay High Court, the learned
single judge before whom the matter came up for hearing has in an exhaustive
discussion narrated the sad state of affairs in this University of Bombay which
has P>"?dueed so many eminent professors and students.
G
The Univerity of Bombay conducts M.D. examiantions, inter alia, in
the disciplines of Obstetrics and Gynaecology in the Faculty of Medicine. The
theory examination consists of four papers, of which paper No. IV is of Essay.
The theory papers I to III consist of three questions each. The practical clinical
examination consists of a long and short case in obstetrics and a long and short
case in Gynae.cology and Viva. The theory papers are assessed by individual H
468 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 1 S.C.R.

A
examiners and the grades are allotted in respect of each question in each paper
in accordance with the provisions set cut in the note giving special instructions
to the examiners in the Faculty of Medicine. The M.D. theory examination in
the instant case was held between 14t:1 October and 17th October, 1985 and
was followed by pratical examination which was held between 4th November
B · and 9th November, 1985. The University had appointed four paper-setters and
examiners in accordance with the nrcessar~ provisions of the Act, two of
which were internal examiners, namely Dr. M.Y. Rawal as mentioned
herein before and one Dr. S.N. Mukherjee from Indian Navy. There were two
external examiners who were Dr. (Mrs.),A. Nafeesa Beebi from Madras and
Dr. S.T. Watwe of Sangli. It is not necessary to deal in more detail with the
C factual aspects which as mentioned hereinbefore have been exhaustively set
out in ihe judgment of the learned sin:~le judge, and which were not disputed
before us by any of the parties. We may mention that grading had to be made
on the following lines as noted in the judgment of the trial judge: ·

D
"G"
"P"
-Good.
- Little better than passing. (
l
"p" - Passing
"P" - Border Jim failure . I
"F" - Failure.

The learned single judge noted that 37 candidates had been declared
E successful including respondent No. 4 being Chandrakala Patil and
respondent No. 5 Dr. Mrs. Smita Thakker. The other respondents no. 6 to 15
mentioned hereinbefore were other successful candidates whose result came to
be nullified and made subject to re--examination by the judgment of the
learned single judge. We are not concerned with this aspect or with them any
more. The petitioner had claimed that he had wrongly been declared as failed.
F The petitioner stated that he had some doubts as to whether his code number
was properly decoded and he made vuious other allegations. The petitioner
complained and the gravamen of his charges was that tl).ere were large number
of irregularities in the declaration of result and mark-sheet was tampered in
favour of respondent no. 4 Chandrakala Patil who is the daughter of the
erstwhile Chief Minister and that Dr. Rawal was instrumental in tampering
G with the result which was done at the behest of the then Chief Minister. The
learned judge came to the conclusion that Dr. Rawal alone was responsible for
tampering with and altering the tabulated grade-sheet of theory examination.
After discussing all these aspects in dftail at the concluding paragraph 15 of
the judgment, the learned judge had observe_d that he had no hesitation in ·
concluding that Dr. Rawal was responsible for manipulating the result by
H tampering with and altering the grade-sheet so as to favour respondent No. 4
S.N. PATIL v. DR. M.M. ?OSAVI [MUKHARJI, J.) 469

and respondent no. 5in the writ petition namely Chandmkala Patil aild Dr. A
Smita Thakkar.

The next question, and which is the main issue before us, to which the
learned judge's•attention was drawn was whether the manipulation was done
by Dr. Rawal at the instance of or behest of'Tespondent no. 3, the appellant
herein, the then Chief Minister of Maharashtra. The learned judge discussed B
the evidence in great detail. The allegations in respect of the same are
contained in paragraph 14 of the petition which have been set out
herein before.

The learned judge noted after setting oµt the gist of the allegation in
paragraph 14 of the petition that the averments made in that paragraph were C
wholly unsatisfactory and insufficient because the petitioner to the writ
petition and the respondent herein had not disclosed from whom he had learnt
what he had averred. We are in entire agreement with that conclusion of the
learned single judge. Indeed this aspect wa5 not disputed by any of the parties
before us. The learned single judge further noted tpat the allegations were not
only denied by Dr. Rawal, Dr. Shah and Chandrakala Pat'! but also by the D
Chief Minister, the appellant, on oath by filing affidavit. Dr. Shah had claimed
that he had never contacted Dr. Rawal in connection with the examination of
respondent no. 4 and so was the claim of respondent no. 4 and of Dr. Rawal.
The appellant in his affidavit dated 26th January, 1986 had stated that Dr.
Shah did not send any message nor did be contact Dr. Rawal at any stage. An
effort was made by the original petitioner, respondent herein to establish by E
direct evidence the link between Dr. Rawal and respondent no. 4 by relying
upon the evidence of one Dr. Mishra sworn on 28th February, 1986. Dr.
Mishra had claimed that his wife who is a doctor had left home to appear in
M.D. examination in November, 1985, but subsequently the wife declined to
answer as to whether she had appeared or ncit. Dr. Mishra claimed that he
went to Dr. Rawal to enquire and he noticed that respondent no. 4 was sitting F
in the doctor's chamber. Dr. Mishra claimed that he over-heard D~. Rawal
telling respondent No. 4 about her poor performance in the examination and
suggested that he could do something only if her father, the Chief Minister,
gave any message. The learned single judge observed in his judgment the .less
said about this affidavit was better. The learned judge further observed that it
was impossible to place any reliance on the evidence of Dr. Mishraas it.ws not G
known how he came to contact the original petitioner-respondent herein or
why he did vot choose to file affidavit till 28th February, 1986. Dr. Rawal had
denied in his evidence that this Mishra came to see him and pointed out that on
that relevant date, that he was heavily occupied and he had hardly any time to
contact any visitor. Smt. Chandrakala Patil also denied the meeting that
transpired between her and Dr. Rawal. In the judgment of the learned trial H
470 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] I S.C.R.

A judge, it was unsafe to place any reliance on the words of Mishra. We
respectfully agree. The learned judge thereafter concluded that there was no
direct evidence to establish the involvement of respondent no. 3, the erstwhile
Chief Minister or the daughter, respondent no. 4 in the original writ petition in
securing favourable result from Dr. rawal. The learned judge noted that
counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner before the trial judge_ had ·
B accepted this position but had urged that it was not possible or in any event
extremely difficult to establish by direct evidence the link between the wrong
doer and the benefit seeker in such cases. It was, therefore; submitted _that it
was necessary for the =ourt to draw inference from the probabilities of the case
as - well as the- surrounding circumstance5. Reliance was placed on the
principles of sectlon 114 of the Indian Evidence Act and it was claimed that
_ C _ from the facts found by the High Court, the inference was irresistible that the
results were tampered with or altered at the behest of the erstwhile Chief
Minister and his daughter:

After referring to the factual position and noting the principles of law,
· the learned judge observed that undoubtedly there was no direct evidence that
D · the result' of respondent no. 4 namely Smt. Chandrakala Patil was tampered
with at the behest of the appellant, Shivajirao Nilangekar Patil, respondent
No. 3 in the original petition but that would not automatically lead to the
conclusion that the charges against the said respondents no. 3 and 4 to the
original petition were -not established. The learned judge went on to observe ·
that it would be a mockery ofjustice if the courts chose to close their eyes to the
E · facts which _were brought· on record by the University by producing the
original documents 'eic. The learned judge observed that it, in the facts and
:circumstances of this case,'could reasonably be inferred that the alteration was
dime at the behest of Nilangekar Patil, erstwhile Chief Minister and her
daughter, Chandrakala Patil. It could not be overlooked, according to the _ j
' learned judge, that only these three were interested in 'securing favourable- ~
- F . result at the examination According to the learned judge. there were two
_ contingencies which had to be taken into consideration. The first was that
respondent no. 4, Smt. Chandrakala Patil, might have used the riame of her.
father, the erstwhile Chief Minister to 'secure favourable result from Dr. Rawal
and secondly, the appellant, the erstwhile Chief Minister might have used his
office to obtain a favourable result for his daughter. Learned counsel on behalf
G - of the original petitioner had urged before learned trial single judge that the
third contingency could not be overlooked that it was probable that Dr. Rawal
------- on his llwn did all these. Learned trial judge rejected the third contingency as
wholly improbable. He was of the view that Dr. Rawal was an experienced
. 'examiner and he was not young or immature and it was impossible to accept_
- the view that .1 pe;..on like Dr. Rawal would proceed to do a criminal act and
H tamper with the record of the examination on his own with a view merely to
S.N. PATIL.v. DR. M.M. GOSAVI [MUKHARJI, J.] 471

--.:' please the people in power. No same person, according to learned judge, was A
likely to take such risk unless he was prompted to do so and given an assurance
of protection by the persons in power. The lear~ed judge was of the view that
the risk involved in what Dr. Rawal had do.ne was so enorljlOUS that it was
difficult to conceive that he did it on his own. It was further urged by learned
counsel before learned trial judge that respondent no. 4, Chandrakala Patil
had failed in the examination on three previous occasions when her father was
B
Law Minister and yet previously the said Nilangekar Patil, respondent no. 3
had not used his influence and power, therefore it was difficult to accept the
position that he would do it on this occasion. This hypothetical question,
according to the learned trial judge, overlooked the fact that every examiner
J
,,'... was not necessarily obliging or subservient as Dr. Rawal was. The learned
I
judge, therefore, concluded that the corollary of this finding was that Dr. c
Rawal had done it at the behest of either the appellant Nilangekar Patil or
Chandrakala Patil or both of. them. Then the learned judge passed some
strictures on Dr. Rawal and suggested some punishment and gave certain
directions about examination of 12 other candidates whose results were also
. affected by the conduct of Dr. Rawal. As these appeals are not concerned with
D
the same, it is not necessary to refer to these. The learned judge directed that
. the result declared on 30th November, 1985 in respect ofrespondents nos. 4 to
15 be revoked and that there should be fresh examination by the other
examiners. These appeals are also not concerned with such direction.

It may be mentioned that an application was made before the learned
trial judge for adducing certain additional evidence on behalf of the petitioner. E
As the learned trial judge thought that it would prolong the trial and for other
reasons, he declined to admit the additional .evidence.
\
As montioned hereinbefore there are three appeals filed namely appeal
No. 214 of i986 by Dr. Rawal, appeal no. 215 of 1986 by Chandrakaia Patil
and appeal No. 216 of 1986 by Nilangekar Patil. F

These appeals came up before a division bench consisting of Kania, Ag.
C.J. Shah, J. of the Bombay High Court. By a judgment delivered on 16th
June, 1986, these appeals were disposed of. So far as appeal No. 214of1986 by
Dr. Rawal was concerned, the division bench found that some of the remarks
against Dr. Rawal were too harsh and the punishment was too severe. They G
directed that enquiry be held against him. These appeals. are not concerned
with thi~. So far as appeal No. 215of1986 preferred by ChandrakalaPatil was
concerned, the same was dismissed with no order as to costs. No· appeal had
been preferred to this Court from the said decision, So far as appeal No. 216 of
1986 before the division' bench was concerned, the learned judges pointed out
after discussing the evidence and the principles of law·thot there was no direct
H
472 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1987] I S.C. R.

A evidence that the alterations in the grades of Chandrakala Patil were made at
the instance of the appellant. According to the division bench, the reasoning of
- I

the learned trial judge in coming to the conclusi9n that respondent Nos. 3 and
4 to the original petition were reponsible for getting Dr. Rawal to alter the
grades aforesaid was based on certain contingencies. According to the division
bench the reasonings adopted by the learned trial judge were too tenuous for
B the conclusion based on such reasoning to anount to a positive finding. The
'ii
Division Bench observed that merely because respondent no. 3 in the original \

petition had held a position of great power and would have been happy to see '·
that his daughter respondent no. 4 and passe:I the M.D. examination, it was
little difficult to conclude as a finding of fact that he must have influenced
·---!'.
respondent no. 2 to alter the grades of his daughter. The learned Division
C Bench noted that it was true that a seasoned examiner like Dr. Rawal would
not have taken the risk involved in altering the grades except under a great ..
pressure of persuasion. The position that grRdes were altered was upheld by
the division bench. The Division Bench, however, was of the opinion that
there might have been various motives whict. might have induced Dr. Rawal
to take the risk and alter the grades. Th< division bench observed that
D theoretically it was possible to conclude as was urged by Mr. Dhanuka, the
learned counsel, that the respondent no. 4 might have used the name of her
father and persuaded Dr. Rawal to alter the grades or some other influential
person might have intervened and persuaded Dr. Rawal to alter the grades on
the footing that respondent no. 3 would be very happy to see his daughter
passed and would reward Dr. Rawal or take care of him or there might be
E some other inducement. However, the Division Bench was of the view that in
all probability Dr. Rawal would not have acted unless he had made him
assured that the appellant in the first appeal was behind the person who
persuaded him to alter the grades. In the view of the Division Bench therefore
the conclusion of the learned trial judge that the grades of respondent no. 4
must have been altered by respondent no. 2 at the instance of respondent no. 3
F by using his official position under a promis<: of protection was certainly not
one which could properly amount to a finding. The Division Bench further
observed that the evidence in support of such a conclusion is too slender to
support a finding of such gravity. The Divi:>ion Bench was of the view that
merely because the appellant held a position of great prestige and power, it
could not be said that the action of.Dr. Rawe.! must have been induced by him
G and in fact when allegation of this type is made against anyone holding a
position of prestige and power, it was necessary that the evidence should be
closely examined before holding such allegation well-founded. The Division -1
Bench in its exhaustive judgment noted varirns decisions of this Court as well
as of the English Courts. The High Court referred to the decision of this Court
in Niranjan Patnaik v. Sashibhushan Kar aiid Another, [1986] 2 SCC 569., a
H decision in which the judgment was delivered by one of us (S. Natarajan, J.).
S.N. PATIL v. DR. M.M. GOSAV! [MUKHARJI, J.] 473

The High Court observed that the remarks made against the appellant, A
Nilangekar Patil cannot be supported as conclusions arrived at against him
but these can be regarded as comments and not finding of fact and such
comments were not wholly unjustified in the facts of this case. The said appeal
No. 216of1986 was disposed of accordingly. The Division Bench also upheld
the finding of the learned single judge that there was tampering with the grade
sheets. The Division Bench also uphold the findingthat Dr. Rawal was mainly B
responsible for the same. The setting aside of the results of Smt. Chandrakala
Patil and Smt. Smita Thakkar was also upheld. So far as the learned trial
judge, held that the same was done at the behest of the erstwhile Chief
Minister, the same was not upheld as a finding of fact but remarks to that fact
made by the learned trial judge were not interfered with. An affidavit was filed
claiming the right to adduoe certain additional evidence and introducing c
certain writings from the magazine INDIA TODAY etc. Such additional
evidence were sought to be introduced as part of the claim of public interest
litigation because it involved the conduct of the Chief Minister in respect of the
affairs of the University. Such claim for introduction of additional evidence,
was, however, not entertained by the Division Bench. The Division Bench,
however, in its judgment noted that the appellant was party to the writ petition
D
and had an· opportunity of explaining ·and defending himself. There were
materials on record bearing on his conduct justifying the remarks.which the
Division Bench characterised as comments and not findings. A prayer was
made before the Division Bench for deletion of such remarks. The Division
Ben.ch was of the view that as the appellant had opportunity to meet such
remarks and such remarks were made upon hearing of the petition the E
question as to the conduct of the appellant in the episode was a matter of
argument and it naturally fell for consideration before the Court. Judging the.
conduct of respondent No. 2 i.e. Dr. Rawal the part played by the apellant,
erstwhile Chief Minister naturally fell for consideration. If the finding of the
learned trial judge, according to the Division Bench, was looked upon as more
adverse comments and not as a finding as such, there could not be any objection F
to the same. The Division Bench was further of the view that the circumstances
noted by the learned judge against the appellant Nilangekar Patil, aforesaid,
formed a reasonable and cogent basis for adverse comment on his conduct.
However, the Division Bench made it clear that these were merely in the nature
of adverse comments and based on the material on record and at the hearing of G
a proceeding which involved the taking of evidence merely on affidavits ..
According to the Division Bench, a fuller enquiry might lead to a conclusion,
that the comment was not justified. In view of this, the Division Bench had
asked the learned counsel for the appellant Shri Dhanuka, whether the ·
appellant desired that there should be a full-fledged factual enquiry into the
charges of the alteration of the grades ofrespondent no. 4 having been altered as H
aforesaid with a view to pass respondent no. 4, Smt. Chandrakala Patil and

,
474 . SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987) I S.C.R.

A further that this was done at the instance of tl:e erstwhile Chief Minister. The r
Division Bench noted that the appellant made no request for any such enquiry
and he was merely taking a stand on the footing that the evidence on record did
not justify any conclusion being arrived at or a comment being made against
respondent no. 3. The Division Bench suggest,xf that even at that S\ilge, if the
appellant wanted a full fledged enquiry and requested the University to hold the
B same, the University might hold such an enquiry into the results of M.D.
examination in Gynaecology and Ohstectrics held in November, 1985,
particularly in respect of the results of respondents Nos. 4 & 5, but if such an
enquiry was held, the person designated to hold the enquiry should be selected
with the consent of the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court.

appeals-one arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 7568
c of 1986Twofiled by Shivajirao Nilangekar Patil against the alleged adverse
remarks and the other arising out of Special leave Petition (Civil) No. 10665
of 1986 by the original petitioner are before this Court. There is an application.
for introduction of additional evidence.

D There are three']loints involved in these two appeals. Firstly, we have to
determine in the appeal by the appellant, Nilar.gekar Patil, the erstwhile Chief
Minister of Maharashtra, whether the obse1vations made by the division
bench about the comments on the conduct of the Chief Minister were justified
or not or should be expunged. Secondly, and connected with the first question
is the question whether the Division Bench of the Bomay High Court was right )
E in upsetting the finding that the tampering with the grade-sh.eels was done at
the behest of the Chief Minister was a finding based on no evidence; and
thirdly whether, in the facts and circumstances of this case the court was
justified in refusing to admit additional evidence and whether we should at this
stage admit additional evidence. ·

F The additional evidence as we have mentioned hereinbefore consist of
certain report in INDIA TODAY and certain other Magazines and certain
affidavits. The basic principle of admission of additional evidence is that the
person seeking the admission of additional evidence should be able to establish
that with the best efforts such additional evidence cquld not have been
adduced at the first instance. Secondly the party affected by the admission of
G additional evidence should have an opportunity to rebut such additional
evidence. Thirdly, that additional evidence was relevant for the determination
of the issue. The additional evidence sought to be introduced mainly consist of
alleged instances when the Chief Minister on previous occasions had in respect
of some criminal proceedings and other matters pending used his influence to
' Now about these, the•:e are controvertial allegations.
drop those proceedings.
H There is no satisfactory explanation that these rn-called material in the form of
S.N. PATIL v. DR. M.M. GOSAVI [MUKHARJI, J.] 475

additional evidence could not have been obtained before the institution of the A
petition in the High Court. To this Mr. Tarkunde's submission was that it was
difficult to gather evidence against a Chief Minister in office but as the case
had gathered momentum, people had come in and after decision of the learned
trial judge, the Chief Minister had resigned and there was an atmosphere of
belief for offering to adduce evidence which people were hesitant to give before
that. We are of the opinion that at this belated stage there was not sufficient B
material ground on which additional evidence should be admitted for the
determin_ation of the issues involved in these appeals.

Jn the appeal filed by the original petitioner Dr. Mahesh Madhav
Gosavi, it was submitted that there were sufficient materials upon which the
conclusion arrived at by the learned trial judge that the tampering was done at c
the behest of the erstwhile Chief Minister and the Division Bench was in error
in deciding that, that was not the finding of fact. Mr. Tarkunde conceded, and
in our opinion rightly, that the view of the Division Bench that the observation
of the learned single judge that tampering of the grade-sheets in M.D.
examination was done at the behest of the Chief Minister was in the nature of a
comment and not a finding was a distinction without any difference. We are of D
the opinion that he is right in this submission. We are also of the opinion that
the Division Bench was right in holding that there was no direct evidence. We
are conscious that in a situation of this type it is difficult to obtain direct
evidence.

' So far as admission of additional evidence is concerned, we are unable
to accept the position that such additional evidence should have been admitted
E

in order to show the nature of the conduct of the Chief Minister in other cases
in similar situations.

The admissibility of evidence as to 'similar fact' has been considered by
the courts. In this connection it may be instructive to refer to the observations F
of Lord Denning in Mood Music Publishing Co. Ltd. v. De. Wolfe Ltd.,
[1976] 1 All England Law Reports 763 at 766., to the following effect:

"The admissibility of evidence ·as to 'similar facts' has been
much considered in the criminal law. Some of them have
reached the highest tribunal, the latest of them being G
Boardman v. Director of Public Prosecutions (1974)3 All ER
887, (1975) AC 421. The criminal courts have been very careful
n<?t to admit such evidence unless its probative value is so
strong that it should be received in the interests ofjustice: and
its admission will not operate unfairly to the accused. Jn civil
H
cl!Ses the courts.have followed a similar line but have not been
476 SUPREME COUl':T REPORTS [ 1987] I S.C. R.

so chary of admitting it. In civil cases the courts will admit
..,
A evidence of similar/acts ij"it is logically probative, that is if it is
logically relevant in determining the matter which is in issue;
provided that it is not opvessiveorunfair to the other side; and
also that the other side has fair notice of it and is able to deal
with it."
B
....
On this aspect cross On Evidence, Sixth Edition page 346 has observed
that although in some early Civil cases in England rejected similar fact
evidence as res inter alias act, it was soon accepted that the r.ule of exclusion
was certainly no stricter than that in criminal cases. The real question was
whether there was a special rule of exclusion at all, or whether it were not
rather a question of simple relevance in each case. The learned author noted
c that in more recent time, there has been a further relaxation of the
exclusionary rules in civil cases. Cross at page 346/ 347 further noted that the
'I
aforesaid observations of Lord Denning might be interpreted as applying in
civil cases a similar sort of balancing approach to the rules for the admissibility
of similar fact evidence as applied in criminal cases. The factors to be weighed
D were however different on account of the peculiar position of the accused in
criminal cases. The learned author noted tha · there was very high authority
accounting for the existence of an exclt:sionary discretion in criminal cases
solely by reference to the accused's vulnerability to prejudice.

Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts as we have mentioned
E hereinbefore, we are of the opinion that :he allegations of alleged conduct of
the appellant in similar cases would not be a safe basis upon which to admit
additional evidence, in this case having regard to the issues involved and
nature of the issues involved in these matl ers and at the stage when these were
sought to be introduced.

F In support of the appellant in Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave
Petition No. 7568 of 1986, Dr. Singh vi submitted that the petitioner/ appellant
had suffered and would continue to suffer serious civil consequences on
account of findings or adverse comments or strictures made by the learned
single judge. It was in those circumstance' that this appeal had been filed. The
appellant had resigned as Chief Minister and he is due, according to Dr.
G Singhvi, to contest the bye-ekction in November, 1986. He has further
submitted that the question in these appeals 'had to be viewed in the
perspective of law and strictly on the ba,;is of the record and should not be
permitted to be politicised either by extraneous allusions or by.presumptions
and pre-suppositions inconsistent with kgal principles or by an attempt by
political opponents to convert the proceedings into a political trial. It "'.as his
H submission that the averments and the supporting affidavits which formed the
S.N. PATIL v. DR. M.M. GOSAVI .IMUKHARJI. J.J" 477

basis of the allegations against the appellant were dealt with in the two courts.
below in the manner as we have indicated. He specially referred to the A
observations of the learned single judge about the affidavit in support of th.Se
allegations. He also relied o~ the observation on Dr. Mishra's affidavit and the
adverse comments made by the learned single judge on Dr. Mishra's affidavit.
He also referred to the finding of the Division Bench that the petitioner had no
personal knowledge of this incident nor had he disclosed the source of the B
L inforrnatioii. That the petitioner had filed the affidavit ofone Manikant Misra
and then <lrew our attention to the various allegations and infirmities of the
affidavit and specially relied on the various motives which might have induced
IL- .. Dr. Rawal, respondent no: 2 in the original petition to take the risk and alter
· the grades and also he referred us to the finding at page 132 ofthe Paper Book
of the Division Bench that the evidence was much too slender in support ·of the
charge against the appellant. He emphasised that these appeals arose out of c
exercise of extra-ordinary jurisdiction by the civil court, not by trial on
r- examination and cross-examination of evidence but an , exercise of
extraordinary jurisdiciton on the basis of the affidavit, and the court should
· insist that there should be 'commensurate' proof for judicial certitude and_that
the distinction between 'finding' and 'adyerse· commerit' ~as a distinction D
without any difference because it was throughout recognised as a finding.

The Division 'Bench in Appeal No. 216 of 1985 has held that the.
conclusion arrived at against Shri Nilangekar Patil was a comment and not a
finding of fact. Dr. Singhvi referred extensively to the affidavit of Dr. Mishra
and comments of learned single judge and the Division Bench as to how E
unreliable such affidavit was.

It wa5 submitted that in view of the infirmities of the affidavit of Dr.
Mishra upon which the original petitioner, Dr.Mahesh MadhavGosavi based
F
his own petition was of such an unreliable credience that the courts should not
have entertained the application.· The Division Bench was unable to accept
that position. We are in agreement with the Division Bench.

The allegations made in the petition disclose" a lamentable state of affairs
, in one of the premier univer~ities of India. The_ petitioner might have moved in
his private interest but enquiry into the conduct of the examiners of the
Bombay University in one of the highest medical degrees was a matter of
G

public interest. Such "state of affairs having been brought to the notice of the
eruct, it was the duty of the court to the public that the truth and the validity of
the allegations made be inquired into. It was in furtherance of public interest
that an enquiry into the state of afairs of public institution becomos necessary H
478 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 1 S.C.R.

A and private litigation assumes the eharaeter of public interest litigation and
sueh an enquiry cannot be avoided if 1t is necessary and essential for the
administration of justice.

The allegations of the petitioner have been noted about the role of the
Chief Minister. It is well to remember that Rajagopala Ayyangar, J. Speaking
B for this Court in C.S. Rowjee & 'Q,,., v. Andhra Pradesh State Road T
Transport Corporation [ 1964] 2 S.C.R. 330 observed at page 347 of the report
that where allegations of this nature were made, the court must be cautious. It
is true that allegation of mala fides and of improper motives on the part of
those in power are frequently made and their frequency has increased in recent --\
times. This Court made these observations as early as 1964. It is more true
C today than ever before. But it has to be bor11e in mind that things are
happening in public life which were never even anticipated before and there
are several glaring instances of misuse of power by men in authority and
position. This is a phenomenon of which the courts are bound to take judicial
notice. In the said decision the court noted that it is possible to decide a matter
of probabilities and of the inference to he drawn from all circumstances on
D which no direct evidence could be adduced. The court furthernoted that it was
somewhat unfortunate that allegations of mala fide which could have no
foundation in fact were made and several cases which had come up before this
Court and other courts and it had been found that these were made merely
with a view to cause prejudice·or in the hope that whether they have basis in
fact or not some of which might at least stick. It is therefore the duty of the
E courts, warned this Court in the said dedsion, to scrutinize these allegations
with care so as to avoid being in any marn1er influenced by them in cases where
they have no foundation in fact. In this task which is cast on the courts, it will

i
be conducive to have disposal and consideration of them if those against
whom allegations are made came forward to place before the court either the
denials or their version of the matter so that the courts might be in a position to
F judge whether the onus that lay upon tho"e who make allegations of mab.fides
on the part of the authorities had been dbcharged in proving it. Of course, the
facts in the instant case are different. It ii: true that the basis of the allegations
being the affidavit of Dr. Mishra was cousidered by the learned single judge as
well as the Division Bench to be thorou1:hly unreliable. In this case there was
specific and categorical denial by the erstwhile Chief Minister that tampering
G was done at his behest. Therefore, while the court should be conscious to deal
with the allegations of mala fide or cast :ispirations on holders of high office
and power, the court cannot ignore the probabilities arising from proven
circumstances.

Our attention was drawn by learned counsel Dr. Singhvi on the
H observations of this Court in The Barium Chemicals Ltd. and Anr., v. The
S.N. PATIL v. DR. M.M. GOS/\VI [MUKHARJI, J.] 479

~. Company Law Board and Others, [1966] Supp. SCR31 I whereat page352 of A
the report the Court observed that where evidence was adduced by affidavits,
such affidavits might be properly verified either on knowledge or from
sources. But the basis of such knowledge or source of information must be
clearly stated. This was laid down as early as 1909 by Jenkins, C.J. and
Woodroofe, J. in Padmabati Dasiv. Rasik Lal Dhar, [!LR XXXVII Calcutta
7 259] where the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court observed that the B
provisions of Order XIX, rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, must be
strictly observes: every affidavit should clearly express how much is a
. statement of the deponent's knowledge and how rnuch of the statement was in
- !._~his belief, and the grounds of belief must be stated with sufficient particularity.
I This has been followed more or less universally by courts in matters where
reliance is placed on affidavits. This view has been rei.terated by this Court in c
The State of Bombay v. Purushottam Jog Naik. [1952] SCR 674 It is on this
principle that Dr. Singhvi urged that the original petition should not have been
entertained because of the defective affidavit in this case. Undoubtedly the
affidavit and the petition were defective as mentioned hereinbefore. But the
court has taken cognizance of the matter and certain inferences followed from
the inherent nature of facts apparent from the facis brought before the Court. D

Reliance was also placed on the observations of this Court in E.P.
Royappav. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr., [1974] 2 SCR 348. The Facts or that
case need not be referred in detail except to mention that there allegation was
made against the Chief Minister by a member of the Indian Administrative
Service in the cadre of the State of Tamil Nadu for not appointing him as the E
Chief Secretary. Ray, C.J. noted in the judgment several facts which were
alleged as instances indicating mala fide. It was stated that those instances gave
rise to the wrath of the Chief Minister against the petitioner in that case. After
noting the alleged incidents, the Chief Justice rejected these events and
. indicated that from the affidavit evidence it could not have been said that the
\-,Chief Minister had committed acts ofviolence or intimidation and the entire F
.J-. afidavit evidence established beyond any measure of doubt that the allegations
of the petitioner in that case imputing mala fides against the Chief Minister
were baseless. In a judgment concurring Bhagwati, J. as the learned Chief
Justice then was, observed at page 389 of the report that in dealing with the
allegation of mala fide, it was necessary to bear in mind two important
considerations; that the court was not concerned to investigate into the acts of G
maladministration by the political Government headed by the Chief Minister
~ at that time. It was not within the province of the court to embark on a far
flung enquiry into the facts of commission and omission charged against the
Chief Minister in the administration of the affairs of Tamil Nadu. That was
not the scope of the inquiry before the court and the court must decline to enter
H
upon any such inquiry. It was one thing to say that the Chief Minister had
480 SUPREME COl.'RT REPORTS [1987] I S.C.R.

A ma/us animus against the petitioner in hat case.The court was only concerned
with the later limited issue and not with the former popular issue. The court
cannot permit the petitioner to side trnck the issue and escape the burden of
establishing hestility and ma/us animui on the part 9f the Chief Minister by
diverting courts attention to incidents of suspicious exercise of executive
power. It is perhaps on this basis that the Division Bench of the Bombay High
B
Court in the instant case rejected the a lplication for additional evidence and
reject<;d the contention in support of th<~ view of misrule or misconduct by the
erstwhile Chief Minister of Maharashtra, Nilangekar Patil, the appellant in
the first appeal. The same principles in respect of affidavit evidence were
reiterated in different context by ths Court in Tara Chand Khatri v.
Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors., [1977] 2 SCR 198. This Court
c reiterated that the High Court was not too wrQng in dismissing the writ
petition in limine in that case because aprimafacie case requiring investigation
had not been made out by the appellant. This Court reiterated that the High
Court would be justified in refusing to carry on investigation into the
allegations of mala fide if necessary pirticulars of the charge making out a
prima facie case were not given in the petition. Since the burden of establishing
D
mala fide lay very heavily on the person who alleged and the allegations made
in regard thereto in the writ petition were not sufficient in that case to establish
ma/us animus, this Court found that the High Court was justified in dismissing
the petition without issuing notice. Dr. Singhvi submitted that precisely the
same was the position in the instant case.
E Reliance was also placed on Sukhvinder Pal Bipan Kumar v. State of
Punjab & Ors., [1982] 2 SCR 31 whm at page40 of the report after dealing
with the allegations in the writ 'petition, this Court observed that the
allegations in the writ petition were not sufficient to constitute an averment of
mala tides so as the vitiate the orders of suspension issued in that case. In such
a situation the court was justified in refusing to carry out investigation into the .
F
allegations of mala tides if necessary pa1ticulars of the charge making a prima '"•
fade case were not there in the petition. This Court reiterated that burden of \
ma/a fide prima j/Jcie lay very heavily rn the person who alleged it. There the
petitioner sought to invalidate certain orders of suspension and it was the onus
on them to establish the charge of bad faith or misuse of its power by the
government.
G
Halsbury's Laws of England, Fourth Edition, Volume 17 page .16
paragraph 19 deals.with the standard of proof necessary in these types of cases. -f
It has been stated that in civil cases tile standard of proof is satisfied on a
balance of probabilities. However, even within this formula, there are
H variations depending upon the subject matter of allegations.
S.N. PATIL v. DR. M.M. GOSAVI [MUKHARJI, J.] 481

About the adverse remarks being' made against the erstwhile Chief A
Minister, we were reminded of the observations of this Court in The State of
Uttar Pradesh v. Mohammad Nairn [1964] SCR 2 363 where this Court
reiterated that it is a principle of cardinal importance in the administration of
justice that the power, freedom of judges and Magistrates must be maintained
and they must be allowed to perform their functions freely and without
B
interference by any body, even by this Court. But it is equally necessary that in
expressing their opinions; Judges and Magistraies must be guided by
• consideration5 of justice, fair-play and restriant. Judicial pronouncements - .
must be judicial in nature, and shoulct not normally depart from sobriety,
:L- moderation and reserve. In that case this Court found that the remarks in the
judgment in respect of the entire police force of the State were not justified in
•
the facts of the case, nor were they necessary for the disposal of the case and C
should have been expunged. We are clearly of the opinion that.the pnnciple
enunciated by that decision can have no application in the facts of this case. In
the instant case, the first issue was wheiher there was tampering of the grade-
sheet, a fact which has been found by the learned single judge and by the
Division Bench and which is not in dispute in any of these appeals before us.
The other dispute was the allegation and the finding of the learned single judge D
was that the same was at the behest of the appellant in the first appeal and the
respondent in .the second appeal, Nilangekar Patil, the erstwhile Chief .
Minister. This point was. very much in issue. He was a party. He had been .
heard on this point. So, therefore, whether the remarks were correct or not, is
another issue but there wa5 no question of the remarks being beyond the issue
E
and no question of the party against whom the r~marks had been made had
not been given an o_pportunity. · .

Our attention was drawn to the decision of this Court in Vineet Kumar
l v. Mangal Sain Wadhera AIR [1985] SC 817 in aid of the submission that
f"' additional evidence should have been allowed but in our opinion the context F
· in which the said observation was made was entirely different and cannot have
'
any relevance to the facts of this Case.
t
. · · -
,
. .
The Privy Counsil in The Bank of India and Others v. Jamesetji A.fl.
Chinoy and Messers.. Chinoy and Co. AIR [1950] P.C. 90 reiterated that -
speculation is not enough to bring home the charge of fraudulant conspiracy. G

In a different context dealing with the election matter in Sri Har!]Singh
,Charan Mohanty v. Sh. Surendra Mohanty, [1974] 3 SCC 680 the question
arose was whether the consent or agency was there. This Court observed that
consent or agency of Shri Biju Patnaik could not be inferred from mere close •
friendship or other relationship or political affiliation. However, close was the H
relationship, unless there was evidence to prove that the person publishing or
482 SUPREME cou1n REPORTS [1987] I S.C.R.

writing the editorial was authorised by the returned candidate or he had
A
undertaken to be responsible for all the publications, no consent could be
inferre\i. In our opinion, the observations must be read in the context of the
facts of that case.

Seth Gulabchand v. Seth Kudilal imd Others [1966) 3 SCR 623 at 629)
B was a case under the Contract Act, 1872 where under section 3 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 applied the same standard of proof in all civil cases. There
this Court after referring to certain observations referred to the observations
of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Jarat Kumari Dassi v.
Bissesur. ILR 39 Cal. 245: 16 C.W.N. 265. The Court thereafter referred to the
definition of section 3 of the words 'proved', 'disproved' and 'not proved'.
Reference was made to the decision of the Patna High Court by Meredith, J.
C at page 630 .in Raja Singh v. Chaichoo Singh AIR 1940 Patna 281at203 where
it was observed by Meredith, J. that it wa,; well settled that where fraud had to
be inferred from the circumstances m:d was not directly proved, those
circumstances must be such as to exclude any other reasonable possibility. In
other words, the criterion was similar to that which was applicable to
]) circumstancial evidence in criminal cases. This Court observed that this Court
was unable to agree with those observations. In that case this Court observed
in respect of the allegation that a party had accepted bribe in a civil case did not
convert it into a criminal case and ordim.rily rule of civil cases would apply.

Reliance was placed on the observations of this Court in the case of
E Niranjan Patnaik v. Sashibhushan Kar a11d Another (supra) to which one of
us (S. Natarajan, J.) was a party where this Court dealt with certain adverse
remarks made against the Minisier. This Court reiterated that the High Court
and this Court must be deemed to have power to see that the courts below do
not unjustly and without any lawful excus'' take away the character of a party
or of a witness or of a counsel before it. The observations in that case in our
F opinion are inapplicable in the instant case. There an adverse remark had been
made which the court found to be unjustified which was not relevant to the
issue in point and the party· against whcm such observations having been
made was not a party to the said proceedir:gs but only a witness. Our attention
was also drawn to certain English cases which have been noted by the Division
Bench in the order under appeal and it is net necessary for us to refer to these in
G detail.

The Division Bench noted that this Court had in the case of State of
Uttar Pradesh v. Mohammad Nairn (supi'a) had exhaustively dealt with the
limitation in making these remarks i.e. (I) whether a party whose conduct in
question was before the court had an opportunity of explaining or defending
H himself; (2) whether there was evidence en record bearing on that conduct
S.N. PATIL v. DR. M.M. GOSAVI (MUKH_ARJI, J.] 483

justifying the remarks; (3) whether it was necessary for the decision of the case A
as an integral part thereof to refer to that conduct; and (4) the observations
must be judicial in nature. These iests, the Division Bench observed were·
·satisfied in respect of the remarks made by the learned single judge. The
Division Bench was of the view that the circumstances relied before the
learned single judge formed a reasonable and cogent basis for the adverse
comment on the conduct of the appellant herein in the first appeal. However, B
the Division Bench made it clear that it was merely in the nature of an adverse
comment based on the material on record and at the hearing of a proceeding
which involved the taking Of evidence merely on affidavit. A fuller enquiry
might lead to a conclusion that the comment was not justified. In that view of
the matter the Division Bench asked the learned counsel whether the appellant
in the first appeal desired that there should be a foll-fledged factual enquiry C
into the charge of the grades of respondent No. 4 having been altered as
aforesaid. Such enquiry, however, must be done by a body, the Division
Bench suggested, nominated by the Chief' Justice .of Bombay High Court.
Counsel for the appellant in the first appeal before us made no request for such
an enquiry, however, must be done.by.a body, the Division Bench suggested, ·
nominated by the Chief Justice of Bombay High Court. Counsel for the D
an enquiry, before the High Court. In other words, he was not willing to
invite an enquiry to clear his image.

Shri T arkunde, appearing on behalf of the respondent in the first appeal
and appellant in the second one, submitted before us that there was sufficient E
substantial evidence before the learned. single judge to come to the conclusion
that the tampering was done at the behest of the erstwhile Chief Minister of
Maharashtra. He submitted it was a finding of fact based on substantial
evidence and there 1was clear material on such eyidence. He further submitted
that in a matter of this nature where public interest was involved namely, state
of affairs in the University of Bombay in respect of a high degree in the F
medicine and in which the conduct of the Chief Minister was involved, public
interest demanded that the High Court should have investigated the matter
even though there might be some infirmities in the affidavit supporting the
petition. He submitted that in this cas_e that after the initiation of the
proceeding, public interest was involved and the High Court was justified in
entertaining the application. He, therefore, submitted that the second appeal G
arising out of Special Leave Petition No. 10665 of 1986 should be allowed. He
further submitted that in a case of this nature, additional evidence should have
been admitted. It was further submitted by Mr. Karanjawala, counsel, that
even if this Court was inclined to accept that there was no distinction between
a comment and a conclusion of fact in view of the facts disclosed in this case,
this Court in exercise of its judicial discretion under article 136 of the H

/
, 484 . SUPREME COUl~T REPORTS (1987] I S.C.R.

A Constitution should not interfere in the facts and circumstances of this case.
He urged that neither the cause of justice nor public interest demanded
r
interference under Article 136 of the Constitution. It is true that exercise of the
power under article 136 of the Constitution is discretionary.

There is no question in this case or giving any clean chit to the appellant
B in the first appeal before us. It leaves a great deal of suspicion that tampering
~
was done to please Shri Patil or at his behest. It is true that there is no direct
evidence. 1t is also true that there is no e'1idence to link him up with tampering.
Tampering is established. The relatiomhip is established. The reluctance to
face a public enquiry is also apparent. Apparently Shri Patil, though holding a
public office does not believe that "ceascr's wife must be above suspicion". The \
c erstwhile Chief Minister in respect of his conduct did. not wish or invite an
enquiry to be conducted by a body nominated by the ChiefJustice of the High
Court. The facts disclose a sorry state or affairs. Attempt was made to pass the )
daughter of the erstwhile Chief Mini!:ter who had failed thrice before by
tampering the record. The person who did it was an employee of the
Corporation. It speaks of a sorry state of affairs and though there is no
D distinction between comment and a finding and there is no legal basis for such
a comment, we substitute the observations made by the aforesaid observations
as herein.

This Court cannot be oblivious that there has been a steady decline of
public standards or public morals and public mo;ale. It is necessary to cleanse
E public life in this country along with or even before cleaning the physical
atmosphere. The pollution in our val "es and standards is an equally grave
menace as the pollution of the environment. Where such situations cry out the
Courts should not and cannot remain mute and dumb.

In that view of the matter, we dispose of the two appeals and application
F for adducing additional evidence with 1he observations made aforesaid. In the
facts and circumstances of this case, there will be no order as to costs. ~l

S.R.