Supreme Court of India
UNION OF INDIA & ANR.versusDINESH KUMAR
- Citation
- 2010 INSC 99
- Decided
- 16 February 2010
- Disposal
- Remitted to Lower Court
- Bench
- V S SIRPURKAR
Holding
The Summary Security Force Court and the appellate authority under Section 117(2) of the Border Security Force Act are not required to give reasons in support of their findings.
Summary
The Union of India filed 62 civil appeals challenging orders of Summary Security Force Courts (SSFC) and the appellate authority under Section 117(2) of the Border Security Force Act, 1968, on the ground that no reasons were recorded for the findings. The Delhi High Court had set aside those orders and directed the appellate authority to rewrite them with reasons. The Supreme Court examined whether the SSFC and the appellate authority are statutorily required to give reasons, analysing the Border Security Force Rules 1969, particularly Rule 149 (applicable to SSFC) and Rule 99 (amended to require reasons for other courts). Since Rule 149 was never amended to impose a duty to record reasons, the Court held that neither the SSFC nor the appellate authority under Section 117(2) need to provide reasons. Consequently, the High Court’s decision was held erroneous, and the matters were remanded to the Delhi High Court for consideration on their merits. The Union of India’s appeals were allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether a Summary Security Force Court is required to give reasons in support of its verdict under the Border Security Force Act, 1968.
- Whether the appellate authority under Section 117(2) of the Border Security Force Act is required to give reasons while confirming or modifying the SSFC's findings.
Legislation cited
- Border Security Force Act, 1968s. 117(2), s. 141, s. 64, s. 70, s. 74
Subjects
Border Security Force ActSummary Security Force Courtreasons for findingsadministrative lawquasi-judicial authorityappellate authorityRule 149Rule 99remandHigh CourtSupreme Court
Judgment
[2010] 2 S.C.R. 830
A
UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
v.
DINESH KUMAR
(Civil Appeal No. 1208 of 2010)
B
FEBRUARY 16, 2010
[V.S. SIRPURKAR AND SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, JJ.]
Border Security Force Act, 1968 - s. 117(2) - Border
C Security Force Rules, 1969 - rr. 99 and 149(1) - Recording
of reasons in support of order passed by Summary Security
Force Court and appellate authority - Requirement of - Held:
SSFC ulr. 149 or appellate authority u/s. 117(2) are not
required to give reasons.Jn support of its decision - r. 99 was
D amended requiring the authority of General Security Force
Court or Petty Security Force Court to give reasons in support
of their findings. - No such amendment was made to r. 149
which is appli9able in case of Summary Security Force Court
- Provisions· for SSFC and appellate authority are pari
E materia - On facts, High Court erred in setting aside the
orders of authorities that the finding of guilt recorded by SSFC
and appellate authority was bad as no reasons were given by
the authorities - Thus, matters remitted back to High Court
for reconsideration on merits.
F The question which arose for consideration in these
appeals was whether the Summary Security Force Court,
and the appellate authority uls. 117 (2) of the Border
Security Force Act, 1968 are required to give reasons in
support of its decision. This Court had remitted the
G matters to High Court.
Now giving reasons for remitting the matters, the
Court
830
H
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. v. DINESH KUMAR 831
HELD: 1.1 Chapter XI of the Border Security Force A
Rules, 1969 deals with the proceedings before Summary
Security Force Court (SSFC). Chapter IX deals with the
procedure for Security Force Courts. Rule 99, which is
included in Chapter IX, deals with Record and
announcement of finding. Under the amended Rule 99(1), B
it became necessary for the SSFC to give brief reasons
in support of the findings, where the procedure of SSFC
was being followed. Rule 99 will not apply to SSFC. The
procedure for SSFC is provided in Chapter XI (Rules 133
to Rule 161). Though Rule 99 was amended requiring c
authority of General Security Force Court or Petty
Security Force Court to give reasons in support of their
findings, no such amendment was made to Rule 149
which is applicable in case of SSFC. Since Rule 149 was
left intact in contradistinction to Rule 99, the authorities
0
of SSFC were not required to give reasons in support of
their findings in all these cases and the High Court
gravely erred in setting aside the orders of authorities on
that count alone. [Paras 8 and 9] [840-C-F]
1.2. Section 117 of the Bord~r Security Force Act, E
1968 provides for remedy against order, finding or
sentence of Security Force Court, which could include the
SSFC also. The provisions for the SSFC and the appellate
authority are pari materia, more particularly in case of r.
149 ands: 117(2) of the Act, with the provisions which F
were considered in both the above authorities. Therefore,
there cannot be ~ny escape from the conclusion that the
reasons would not be required to be given by the SSFC
under r. 149 or by the appellate authority under Section
117(2) of the Act. This position is all the more obtained G
in case of SSFC, particularly, as the Legislature chose
not to amend Rule 149, though it specifically amended
Rule 99 w.e.f. 9.7.2003. [Para 12] [843-B-F]
S.N. Mukherjee Vs. Union of India 1990 (4) SCC 594,
followed. H
832 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 2 S.C.R.
A Som Datt Datta Vs. Union of India AIR 1969 SC 414;
Nirmal Lakra Vs. Union of India & Ors. 2003 DLT (102) 415,
referred to.
Case Law Reference:
B AIR 1969 SC 414 Referred to. Para 10
1990 (4) sec 594 Followed. Para 12
2003 DLT (102) 415 Referred to. Paras 12, 13
c CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
1208 of 2010
From the Judgment & Order dated 01.09.200~ of the High
Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition No. 6856. of 2000.
D WITH
C.A. Nos. 1209, 1210, 1212, 1213, 1214, 1215, 1217, 1219,
1221, 1222, 1223, 1224, 1225, 1226, 1227, 1228, 1229, 1230,
1231, 1232, 1233, 1234, 1235, 1237, 1238,' 1239, 1240, 1241,
E 1242, 1243, 1244, 1245, 1246, 1247, 1249, 1250, 1251, 1252,
1253, 1255, 1556, 1257, 1258, 1259, 1261, 1262, 1263, 1264,
1265, 1267, 1268, 1269, 1270, 1271, 1274, 1275, 1277, 1279,
1280, 1281, 1282 of 2010
F P.P. Malhotra, ASG, Ms. Rekha Pandey.Ms. Sunita
Sharma, S.N.Terdol, Ruhitas Nagar (for Sushma Suri), Satbir,
Dr. Sushil Balwada, Anil Kanwal, Sanjay Kumar, Sarada Devi,
S. N.Pandey, Chander Shekhar Ashri, K. P. Mani (for M/s. K.J.
John & Co., Ranbir Singh Yadav, K.K. Tyagi, lftekhar Ahmad
G (for P. Narasimhan), D.C. Yadav (for Dr. Kailash Chand), Anil
Gautam (for Anil Kumar Bakshi), B.S. Mor, S.R. Kalkal (for R.C.
Kaushik), Gp. Cap. Karan Singh Bhati, Parmanand Pandey,
J.P. Dhanda, Mrs. Raj Rani Dhanda, Satya Mitra Garg, Pankaj
Kum'ar Singh, J.P.N. Gupta, Dr. Vinod Tewari, K.L.Janjani, M.A.
H
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. v. DINESH KUMAR 833
Chinnasamy, K. Rajeev, Bishram Singh (for S.P. Sharma), A
Gopal Singh, Ms. Vimla Sinha, Shankar Divate, Jatendra
Singh, Ms. Priyanka Singh (for S.K. Sabharwal), Nar Hari Singh
(for Vikas Mehta), Dr. Nafis A. Siddiqui, Subramonium Prasad,
A.V. Palli, Mrs. Rekha Palli, Atul Sharma, Davendra Singh,
Shibashish Misra, Abhisth Kumar, Ajay Chaudhary, Shilpa B
Chauhan, (for Rajesh Singh), Ashok Kumar Singh, Surinder Dutt
Sharma, Naresh Kumar Gaur, Anis Suhrawardy, Shamama
Anis, S. Mehdi Imam, Pervez Dabas, Kanwar C.K. Khan, lrshad
Ahmad, Ramesh Kumar, lmran K. Burney, Vikas Singh, Dr.
Krishan Singh Chauhan, K. C. Lamba, Chand Kiran, Kartar c
Singh, Jagdev Singh Manhas for the Appearing Paries.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by:
V.S. SIRPURKAR, J. 1. This judgment will dispose of 62
Civil Appeals mentioned above. D
2. We had, by earlier orders, directed the remand of all
these matters to the High Court and now we proceed to give
reasons in support of our orders.
3. All these appeals have been filed by the Union of India. E
The main contesting respondents in all these appeals are the
members of the Border Security Force. The respondents in all
the matters succeeded before the High Court, which took the
view that the orders passed against them by the Summary
Security Force Court (hereinafter referred to as 'SSFC' for F
short) and the appellate authority were bad and illegal, as there
were no reasons given by any of these authorities.
4. On that count, the High Court directed remand in all the
matters to the appellate authority under Section 117 (2) of The G
Border Security Force Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Act' for short) for rewriting the order, giving reasons in support
of the conclusions reached by the same. The lead judgment was
passed on 16.1.2006 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 9427 of 2005
H
834 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 2_ S.C.R
A filed by one Constable Hans Raj. Relying on that judgment, all
the other Writ Petitions in the above ap!Jeals before us were
directed to be disposed of. The Union of India has now
challenged the lead judgment, as well as other judgments,
which were passed relying upon the same.
B
5. The common question that falls for consideration in all
these appeals can be stated as under:-
Whether the Summary Security Force Court (SSFC) is
required to give reasons in support of its verdict?
c
Similarly,.
Whether the appellate authority under Section 117 (2) is
required to give reasons while considering the
correctness, legality or propriety of the order passed?
D
6. It is a common ground that in all these appeals, no
reasons were given by either the SSFC or by the, authority
under Section 117 of the Act, which acts as anI
appellate
.
authority. _.,.
E
7. Before we approach this question, it must be stated in
all fairness that majority of the Learned Counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondents, agreed to have the judgment in their
favour set aside, provided the matter is remanded back to the
F High Court for deciding the Writ Petitions on merits. This was
obviously because in all these matters, the merits of the Writ
Petition were not considered and all the Writ Petitions were
allowed for the sole reason that the appellate authority or the
SSFC had not recorded any reason in support of the verdict
given by them. In fact, Shri P.P. Malhotra, Learned ASG also
G fairly conceded that the Writ Petitions were not decided on
merits by the High Court and they were allowed on the
preliminary ground that no reasons were given by the authorities
under the Act. There were very little or almost no arguments led
on behalf of the respondents supporting the 01 der. However.
H
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. v. DINESH KUMAR 835
[V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.]
in order to put the record straight and before acting on the A
request, we must consider the arguments led by the Learned
ASG, who contended that there is no requirement of giving any
reasons either by the SSFC or by the appellate authority under
Section 117 of the Act.
B
8. Under the scheme of The Border Security Force Act,
there are three kinds of Security Force Courts. Section 64 of
the Act provides for those three kinds, they being (a) General
Security Force Courts; (b) Petty Security Force Courts; and (c)
Summary Security Force Courts. We are concerned here only C
with Summary Security Force Courts (SSFC). Section 70
provides that a SSFC may be held by the Commandant of any
unit of the Force and he alone shall constitute the Court. Sub-
section (2) of Section 70 suggests that the proceedings shall
be attended throughout by two other persons who shall be
officers or subordinate officers or one of either, and who shall D
not as such, be sworn or affirmed. Section 74 speaks about
the powers of a SSFC. Sub-Section (1) thereof provides that
the SSFC may try any offence punishable under the Act, subject
to the provisions of Sub-Section (2). Sub-Section (2) provides
that when there is no grave reason for immediate action and E
reference can without detriment to discipline be made to the
officer empowered to convene a Petty Security Force Court for
the trial of the alleged offender, an officer holding a Summary
Security Force Court shall not try without such reference any
offence punishable under any of the Sections 14, 17 and 46 of F
this Act, or any offence against the officer holding the Court.
Sub-Section (3) provides that the SSFC could try any person,
subject-to the Act and under the command of the officer holding
the Court, except an officer or a subordinate officer. Sub-
section (4) controls the power of granting sentence and G
suggests that the SSFC may pass any sentence except the
sentence of death or imprisonment for a term exceeding the
limit specified in sub-Section (5). Sub-Section (5) provides the
limit referred to under sub-Section (4) as under:-
H
836 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010) 2 S.C.R.
A (a) one year, if the officer holding the Security Force
Court has held either the post of Superintendent of
Police or a post declared by the Central
Government by notification to be equivalent thereto,
for a period of not less than three years or holds a
B post of higher rank than either of the said posts; and
(b) three months, in any other case.
It is, therefore, clear that the SSFC can try all the offences,
however, has limited powers in respect of the sentence which
C also depends upon the rank of the officer holding the SSFC.
The offences under the Act are as mentioned in Chapter Ill while
Chapter IV deals with the punishments. Section 117 of the Act
provides for remedy against order, finding or sentence of
Security Force Court, which could include the SSFC also.
D Under sub-Section (1) thereof, a petition could be filed by the
aggrieved person before such person, officer or authority, who
is empowered to confirm any finding or sentence of the SSFC
and such officer or the authority has to specify himself/itself as
to the correctness, legality or propriety of the order passed or
E as to the regularity of any proceeding to which the order relates.
Sub-Section (2) thereof provides that any finding or sentence
of the SSFC, which has been confirmed, could be challenged
by the aggrieved person before the Central Government, the
Director General or any prescribed officer, who is superior in
F command to one who confirms the finding and sentence, and
such appellate authority like the Central Government, the
Director General or the prescribed officer may pass such order
thereon, as it/he thinks fit. Section 141 of the Act provides for
the power to make rules, under which the Central Government
G may make rules for the purpose of carrying into effect the
provisions of the Act. Such rules have been framed, they being
Border Security Force Rules, 1969. Chapter XI of the said
Rules deals with the proceedings before SSFC. Rule 148 runs
as under:-
H 148. Verdict: The Court shall after the evidence for
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. v. DINESH KUMAR 837
[V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.]
prosecution and defence has been heard, give its opinion A
as to whether the accused is guilty or not guilty of the
charge or charges.
Rule 149 is the most important Rule, on which Shri
Malhotra, Learned ASG has heavily relied upon. The Rule 8
is as under:-
149. Finding:
(1) The finding on every charge upon which the
accused is arraigned shall be recorded and except c
as mentioned in these rules shall be recorded
simply as a finding of "Guilty" or of "Not Guilty".
(2) When the Court is of opinion as regards any charge
that the facts proved do not disclose the offence
D
charged or any offence of which he might under the
Act legally be found guilty on the charge as laid, the
Court shall find the accused "Not Guilty" of that
charge.
(3) When the Court is of opinion as regards any charge E
that the facts found to be proved in evidence differ
materially from the facts alleged in the statement of
particulars in the charge, but are nevertheless
sufficient to prove the offence stated in the chafge,
and that the difference is not so material as to have F
prejudiced the accused in his defence, it may,
instead of finding of "Not Guilty" record a special
finding.
(4) The special finding may find the accused guilty on
G
a charge subject to the statement of exceptions or
variations specified therein.
(5) The Court shall not find the accused guilty on more
than one of two or more charges laid in the
alternative, even if conviction upon one charge H
838 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 2 S.C.R.
A necessarily connotes guilt upon the alternative
charge or charges.
It is important to note at this juncture that in the same Rules,
Chapter IX deals with the procedure for Security Force Courts.
Rule 99, which is included in Chapter IX, is of importance for
8
the decision in these appeals. Before its amendment in the year
2003, the Rule was as under:-
99. Record and announcement of finding:-
c (1) The finding on every charge upon which the
accused is arraigned shall be recorded and except
as provided in these rules, shall be recorded simply
as a finding of "Guilty" or of "Not Guilty".
(2) Where the Court is of opinion as regards any
D
charge that the facts proved do not disclose the
offence, charge or any offence of which he might
under the Act legally be found guilty on the charge
as lafd, the Court shall acquit the accused of that
charge.
E
(3) If the Court has doubts as regards any charge
whether the facts proved show the accused to be
guilty of the charge as laid, it may, before recording
a finding on that charge, refer to the confirming
F authority for an opinion, setting out the facts which
it finds to be proved and may if necessary, adjourn
for that purpose.
(4) Where the Court is of opinion as regards any
charge that the facts which it finds to be proved in
G evidence differ materially from the facts alleged in
the statement of particulars in the charge but are
nevertheless suffident to prove the offence stand in
the charge, and that the difference is not so material
as to have prejudiced the accused in his defence,
H
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. v. DINESH KUMAR 839
[V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.]
it may, instead of a finding of "Not Guilty" record a A
special finding.
(5) The special finding may find the accused guilty on
a charge subject to the statement of exceptions or
variations specified therein.
B
(6) Where there are alternative charges, and the facts
proved appear to the Court not to constitute the
offence mentioned in any of those alternative
charges, the Court shall record a finding of "Not
Guilty" on that charge. c
(7) The Court shall not find the accused guilty on more
than one of two or more charges laid in the
alternative, even if conviction upon one charge
necessarily connotes guilty upon the alternative D
charge or charges.
(8) If the Court thinks that the facts proved constitute
one of the offences stated in two or more of the
alternative charges, but doubts which of those
offences the facts do at law constitute, it may, before E
recording a finding on those charges, refer to the
confirming authority for an opinion, setting out the
facts which it finds to be proved and stating that it
doubts whether those facts constitute in law the
offence stated in such one or other of the charges F
and may, if necessary, adjourn for that purpose.
(9) Not relevant.
After the amendment of Rule 99(1), the same was in the G
following form:-
99. Record and announcement of finding:-
(1) The finding on every charge upon which the
accused is arraigned shall be recorded and except H
840 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 2 S.C.R.
A as provided in these rules, shall be recorded simply
as a finding of "Guilty" or of "Not Guilty". After
recording the finding on each charge, the Court
shall give brief reasons in support thereof. The Law
Officer or, if there is none, the Presiding Officer shall
B record or cause to be recorded such brief reasons
in the proceedings. The above record shall be
signed and dated by the Presiding Officer and the
law Officer, if any.
Therefore, under Rule 99(1), it became necessary for the
C SSFC to give brief reasons in support of the findings,, where
the procedure of SSFC was being followed.
9. It is needless to mention that Rule 99 will not apply to
SSFC. The procedure for 'ssFC is provided in Chapter XI
. D (Rules 133 to Rule 161), which alone is relevant here. It must
be noted here that though Rule 99 was amended requiring
authority of General Security Force Court or Petty Security
Force Court to give reasons in support of their findings, no such
amendment was made to Rule 149 which is applicable in case
E of SSFC. Shri Malhotra, Learned ASG, therefore, rightly argued
that since Rule 149 was left intact in contradistinction to Rule
99, the authorities of SSFC were not required to give reasons
in support of their findings in all these cases and the High Court
has gravely erred in setting aside the orders of authorities on
F that count alone.
10. Shri Malhotra, Learned ASG further argued that if the
SSFC was not required to give reasons under Rule 149, then
the appellate/revisional authority under Section 117(2), also
need not record its reasons while dealing with the appeal. Shri
G Malhotra further pointed out that in all the above matters, the
SSFC only recorded findings in terms of Rule 149(1) by
recording the verdict of guilty and the said verdict has been
confirmed by the appellate authority under Section 117(2) of
the Act in the similar manner without giving any reasons. Shri
H Malhotra pointed out that the High Court has allowed all the Writ
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. v. DINESH KUMAR 841
[VS. SIRPURKAR, J.]
Petitions only on the sole ground that the reasons have not been A
given by the appellate authority or the SSFC. He pointed out
that if the SSFC was not required to give any reasons, even
the appellate authority under Section 117(2) of the Act was not
required to record any reasons. For this, Shri Malhotra relied
on the decision in Som Datt Datta Vs. Union of India [AIR 1969 B
SC 414], which decision is followed by the Constitution Bench
in the decision in S.N. Mukherjee Vs. Union of India [1990 (4)
SCC 594]. There also, the question arose as to whether the
court martial authorities in case of Army personnel, as also the
appellate authorities, dealing with the proceedings, were c
required to give reasons and whether the absence of reasons
would invalidate the verdict. In Som Datt Datta Vs. Union of
India (cited supra), a contention was raised that the order of
the Chief of the Army Staff confirming the proceedings of the
court martial under Section 164 of the Army Act, 1950 was
0
illegal since no reason had been given in support of the order
by the Chief of the Army Staff and that the Central Government
had also not given any reasons while dismissing the appeal of
the petitioner in that case under Section 165 of the Army Act,
1950. The Court took the view that while Section 162 of the
E
Army Act expressly provided that the Chief of Army Staff may
for reasons based on the merits of the case, set aside the
proceedings or reduce the sentence to any other sentence
which the Court might have passed, there was no express
obligation imposed by Sections 164 and 165 of the Army Act
on the confirming authority or upon the Central Government to F
give reasons in support of its decision to confirm the
proceedings of the court martial. In Som Datt Datta Vs. Union
of India (cited supra), no other Section of the Army Act or any
of the Rules made thereunder, had been brought to the Court's
notice, from which necessary implication could be drawn that G
such a duty to give reasons was cast upon the Central
Government or upon the confirming authority.
11. In S.N. Mukherjee Vs. Union of India (cited supra),
again more or the less same question came before the H
842 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010) 2 S.C.R.
A Constitution Bench of this Court in respect of the provisions
under Section 164 of the Army Act, as also the Army Rules.
The Court held that except in cases where the requirement has
been dispensed with expressly or by necessary implication, an
administrative authority exercising judicial or quasi-judicial
B functions must record the reasons for its decision. The Court
was of the view that such reasons, if recorded, would enable
the higher Courts like Supreme Court and the High Courts to
effectively exercise the appellate or supervisory power. It also
expressed that the requirement of recording reasons would
c necessarily (i) guarantee consideration by the authority; (ii)
introduce clarity in the decisions; and (iii) minimize chances of
arbitrariness in decision making. This Court also further went
on to hold that the reasons need not be as elaborate, as in the
decision of a Court of law and that the extent and nature of the
reasons would depend on particular facts and circumstances.
0
What was necessary was that the reason~ were clear and
explicit so as to indicate that the authority has given due
consideration to the points in controversy. However, the Court
further went on to hold that the provisions of the Army Act and
Rules suggested that at the stage of recording of findings and
E sentence, the court martial is not required to record its reasons.
This Court also held that the judge-advocate plays an important
role during the course of trial at a general court martial and he
is enjoined to maintain an impartial position. This Court further
held that under the Army Rules, the court martial records its
F findings after the judge-advocate has summed up the evidence
and has given his opinion upon the legal bearing of the case
and that the members of the court have to express their opinion
as to the findings by word of mouth on each charge separately
and the finding on each charge is to be recorded simply as a
G finding of "guilty" or of "not guilty". It was held that it was only in
case of Rule 66(1) of the Army Rules, where there was a
recommendation for mercy, the reasons were required to be
given. The Court further went on to hold in paragraph 48 that
reasons are also not required to be recorded for an order
H passed by the confirming authority, confirming the findings and
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. v. DINESH KUMAR 843
[V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.]
sentence recorded by the court martial. It further went on to hold A
that even the Central Government, dismissing the post-
confirmation petition, is not required to record the reasons.
Ultimately in para 48, the Court observed:-
.
"48. For the reasons aforesaid, it must be held that
8
reasons are not required to be recorded for an order
passed by the confirming authority confirming the findings
and sentence recorded by the court martial as well as for
the order passed by the Central Government dismissing
the post-confirmation petition. Since we have arrived at the C
same conclusion as in Som Datt Datta Case the
submission of Shri Ganguli that the said decision needs
reconsideration cannot be accepted and is, therefore,
rejected."
12. On this backdrop, it is clear that the provisions for the D
SSFC and the appellate authority are pari materia, more
particularly in case of Rule 149 and Section 117(2) of the Act,
with the provisions which were considered in both the above
authorities. Therefore, there cannot be any escape from the
conclusion that as held by the Constitution Bench, the reasons E
would not be required to be given by the SSFC under Rule 149
or by the appellate authority under Section 117(2) of the Act.
This position is all the more obtained in case of SSFC,
particularly, as the Legislature has chosen not to amend Rule
149, though it has specifically amended Rule 99 w.e.f. 9.7.2003. F
It was pointed out that inspite of this, some other view was taken
by the Delhi High Court in the decision in Nirmal Lakra Vs.
Umon of /ndia-&-e~ea-BEF(402-)-415]J-Jowever, it need '.
not detain us, since Rule 149 did not fall for consideration in
that case. Even otherwise, we would be bound by law declared G
by the Constitution Bench in the decision in S.N. Mukherjee
Vs. Union of India (cited supra).
13. As has already been stated above, the contention of
Shri Malhotra, Learned ASG was not traversed by most of the
Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents and those who H
844 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 2 S.C.R.
A feebly controverted the same, could not show any decision
excepting the .decision in Nirmal Lakra Vs. Union of India &
Ors. [2003 DLT(102) 415], which does not consider Rule 149
..
and more particularly, the aspect of its non-amendment in
contradistinction with the amendment of Rule 99. '"
B
14. It was, however, urged by all the Learned Counsel
appearing on behalf of the respondents that since Delhi High
0ourt has disposed of all the petitions only on the sole ground
of the absence of reasons in support of the findings by SSFC
and the appellate authority, the other contentions on merits of
C the Writ Petitions were not considered. They, therefore, urged
that we should remand back all these matters. We had
accordingly remanded the matters. Shri Malhotra, Learned ASG
also very fairly conceded that the merits of the Writ Petitions
were not considered and, theref~re, on that count, it would only
D be proper to remand the matters back to the Delhi High Court
for reconsideration on merits. We have ordered accordingly.
In the result, all these appeals filed by the Union of India
succeed. All the matters are sent back to the Delhi High Court,
which shall be now considered on the other contentions raised
E on merits. Since the matters have become very old, we would
request the High Court to dispose of these appeals as early
as possible and not beyond six months from the date when the
records reach Delhi High Court.-
N.J. Reasons given for remitting the matters to High Court.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Border Security Force Act"Sign in to search