http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: M. SATYANARAYANA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT12/03/1986

BENCH: MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J) BENCH: MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J) SINGH, K.N. (J)

CITATION:  1986 AIR 1162            1986 SCR  (1) 692  1986 SCC  (2) 512        1986 SCALE  (1)564

ACT:      A. Supreme  Court Rules 1966 Rule 5A of order XV - When the  certificate  issued  under  Article  133(1)(b)  of  the Constitution by  the High  Court is unwarranted on the facts of the  case the  certificate must be revoked and the appeal be dismissed.      B. Construction  of a statute, explained - Construction of the word "and" in clause (iii) of Rule 4 of the Karnataka Medical Colleges  (Selection of  Candidates  for  Admission) Rules 1984  explained  -  Subb-clause  (a)  cannot  be  read independently of sub-clause (b).

HEADNOTE:      The  appellant  who  is  a  student  of  some  academic distinction and  ability sought admission to the Ist year of MBBS Course  under the  special category  being a  son of  a freedom fighter  or political sufferer within the meaning of clause (iii)  of Rule  4 of  the Karnataka  Medical Colleges (Selection of  Candidates for Admission), Rules 1984 who had participated in  1942 Movement  and was imprisoned from 10th of September, 1942 to 2nd of October, 1942. Since he was not granted admission  under that  category,  he  filed  a  writ petition before  the Karnataka  High Court  contending  that sub-clause (a)  of clause  (iii) of Rule 4 of the 1984 Rules should be  read independently  as well as sub-clause (b) not only of  each other  but also what follows by way of proviso though not  so mentioned.  Both  the  Writ  Petition  and  a further  appeal   to  the  Division  Bench  were  dismissed. However, the  High Court granted a certificate under Article 133(1)(b) of the Constitution.      Dismissing the appeal, the Court, ^      HELD :  1. Under  Rule 5A  of Order  XV of  the Supreme Court Rules,  1966 when  a party  to whom  a certificate  of fitness to  appeal has  been granted  by the High Court, the Supreme Court 693 may, either  dismiss it  summarily or direct issue of notice to all  necessary parties  or may  make such  orders as  the circumstances of  the case  may require.  In this  case  the question involved  is a simple one and the intention and the purpose  of   Rule  4  of  the  Karnataka  Medical  Colleges

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

(Selection  of  Candidates  for  Admission)  Rules  1984  is manifest and  in the  language there  is no  difficulty. The certificate under  Article 133(i)(b)  of the Constitution to the effect  that in  the opinion of the Karnataka High Court the question  involved needs  to be  decided by  the Supreme Court is unwarranted. [696 D-E]      2.1 A statute cannot be construed merely with reference to grammer.  Statute, whenever the language permits, must be construed reasonably  and rationally  to give  effect to the intention and  purpose of  the legislature.  The  expression "and" in  clause (iii)  of Rule  4 has  generally cumulative effect requiring  the fulfilment  of all the conditions that it joins  together and  it is  the antithesis  of "or".  The expression  "and"  in  the  instant  case,  cannot  be  read disjunctively. [696 C-D]      A.K. Gopalan  v. The  State of Madras, [1950] S.C.R. 88 at 126; and Ishwar Singh Bindra & Ors. v. The State of U.P., [1969] 1 S.C.R. 219 applied.      2.2 It  is not  possible to  hold that  sub-clause  (a) should be  read independently  of  sub-clause  (b).  If  the expression "and"  in clause  (a) is  read independently then there was  no need  for  him  to  suffer  at  all  and  mere participation would  be  enough  to  make  him  a  political sufferer. If  it were  to be  held so  it would  defeat  the rationale the  Rule  4  defining  a  political  sufferer  or freedom fighter in the Rules. [695 G-H; 696 C]

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 600 of 1986.      From the  Judgment and  Order dated  2.12.1985  of  the Karnataka High Court in Writ Appeal No. 2665 of 1985.      P.R. Ramasesh for the Appellant.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 694      SABYASACHI  MUKHARJI,   J.  This   is  an   appeal   by certificate under  article 133  (1)(b) of  the  Constitution from the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka dismissing  the appeal against the judgment of the learned single  Judge of  that  High  Court.  The  appellant herein who  is a  student of  some academic  distinction and ability sought  admission to the 1st year of M.B.B.S. Course to the  Directorate of  Medical  Education,  Karnataka.  The appellant was an applicant to one of the Government seats in the Medical Colleges managed by the Government or one of the seats to which the Government was entitled to in the private medical colleges.      The  appellant  was  seeking  admission  under  special category reserved for sons of political sufferers or freedom fighters. The  relevant rule  is Rule  4  of  the  Karnataka Medical Colleges  (Selection of  Candidates  for  Admission) Rules 1984.  Note (iii)  of the  said  Rule  has  defined  a political Sufferer or Freedom Fighter as follows :           "A person           (a) who prior to 15th August, 1947 participated in           the National  Movement for  the  emanicipation  of           India,  that   is  in   the  struggle  for  Indian           Independence; and           (b) who  even after 15th August, 1947 participated           in the struggle in any princely State for securing           accession of  such State  to the  then dominion of           India, who on account of such participation -           (i) has  suffered imprisonment  or detention for a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

         period of  not less  than three  months, the  said           period being  calculated taking  into account  the           period of  remission, if  any,  granted  for  good           conduct, other like reasons; or           (ii) has been awarded capital punishment; or           (iii)  had   died  while  undergoing  sentence  or           detention; or           (iv)   was    killed   or    became    permanently           incapacitated by  Police  or  Military  firing  or           lathi charge; or 695           (v) lost  his job,  property  or  other  means  of           livelihood;           (vi) where  certificates of  imprisonment are  not           available due to records being destroyed, etc., an           affidavit by  the  political  sufferer  about  his           imprisonment supported  by a  certificate  from  a           Member of  Parliament or  a Member  of  the  State           Legislature,  who   has  been  in  jail  with  him           specifying the  period of  imprisonment  would  be           accepted."      The case  of the  appellant was  that  his  father  had participated in  1942 Movement  and was imprisoned from 10th of September, 1942 to 2nd of October, 1942. His further case is that  because of  the aforesaid  participation, his grand father i.e.  father of  the appellant’s  father, was annoyed and turned  him out  of the  house and  so the father of the appellant could  not pursue  his studies and therefore could not qualify himself well for good job. The appellant claimed admission on  the ground of being a son of a freedom fighter or political  sufferer and  that he  belongs  to  a  special category and should be treated as such. It is contended that sub-clause (a)  of clause  (iii) of  the note 4 of the Rules should be  read independently  as well as sub-clause (b) not only of  each other  but also what follows by way of proviso though not  so mentioned.  The learned  judge was  unable to accept that  contention. The  division Bench  accepted  this view of the learned single Judge.      Reservations in  favour of  sons of political sufferers are considered  to be belonging to a special category. There is rationale  behind it.  Those who  are political sufferers undergo certain disadvantages and pass on such disadvantages to their children. They will be in a worse position than the children of  those who  are not  political sufferers for the purpose of taking adequate education, attention etc. because their parents  might have  languished in any prison or might have been deprived of property. Looked at from that point of view, political  sufferer should  be an  identifiable person who could  be recognised  as such on certain rational basis. It is,  therefore, manifest  that a person to be a political sufferer must  have suffered  in any  one of  the five  ways stated in sub-clause (i) to (v) of clause (b). 696      If  the   expression  ’and’   in  clause  (a)  is  read independently then  there was  no need  for him to suffer at all and  mere participation  would be  enough to  make him a political sufferer.  That would  defeat the rationale behind the rule.  It would,  therefore, frustrate the intention and purpose of  the legislature.  The expression  ’and’ in these circumstances  cannot  be  read  disjunctively.  It  is  not possible  to   hold  that  sub-clause  (a)  should  be  read independently  of   sub-clause  (b).  A  statute  cannot  be construed merely with reference to grammar. Statute whenever the  language  permits  must  be  construed  reasonably  and rationally to  give effect  to the  intention and purpose of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

the  legislature.  The  expression  ’and’  has  generally  a cumulative effect,  requiring  the  fulfilment  of  all  the conditions that  it joins  together and it is the antithesis of ’or’.  In this  connection reference  may be made to A.K. Gopalan v. The State of Madras, [1950] S.C.R. 88 at 126. See also the observations of this Court in Ishwar Singh Bindra & Ors. v. The State of U.P., [1969] 1 S.C.R. 219.      This construction,  put by  High Court, in our opinion, is logical  and reasonable  construction. The  High Court as mentioned  hereinbefore  has  granted  a  certificate  under article 133  (1)(b) of  the Constitution.  We find  that the question is  a simple  one and the intention and the purpose of the  rule is  manifest and  in the  language, there is no difficulty. The  certificate under article 133 (1)(b) of the Constitution, in our opinion, was therefore unwarranted. We, therefore, revoke  the certificate  and dismiss  the  appeal summarily under  Rule 5-A  of Order  XV of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966.  We, however, make it clear that the appellant, the student  in question,  is a  student of  some credit and distinction and  has  obtained  74%  of  the  marks  in  his examination. His  case should  be considered  favourably and objectively in the general category for admission.      In the  facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. S.R.                                       Appeal dismissed. 697