http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: R.R. DALAVAI

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF TAMIL NADU

DATE OF JUDGMENT07/05/1976

BENCH: BEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH BENCH: BEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH RAY, A.N. (CJ) SINGH, JASWANT

CITATION:  1976 AIR 1559            1976 SCR  601  1976 SCC  (3) 748

ACT:      Pension scheme  to anti-Hindi  agitators-Constitutional validity of Constitution of India Article 351.      Budget sanction  through Appropriation  Act 38  of 1974 for  payment  of  pension  to  anti-Hindi  agitators  by  an executive order is unconstitutional-Madras Budget Manual.

HEADNOTE:      The appellant challenged the constitutional validity of the pension  scheme of  the respondent-State  by  which  the anti-Hindi agitators  were  to  be  paid  pension  from  the Consolidated Fund of the State. The High Court dismissed the writ holding  that (1) the spirit and letter of Art. 351 was not violated  and (2) in view of the Appropriation Act 38 of 1974, the payment was not illegal.      Allowing the appeal by special leave, the Court ^      HELD: (1)  The pension  scheme formulated  by the Tamil Nadu Government  contains the  vice  of  disintegration  and fomenting fissiparour  tendencies.  If  any  State  will  be engaged in  exicting emotion  against  Hindi  or  any  other language, such  provocation has  to be  nipped  in  the  bud because  these   are   anti-national   and   anti-democratic tendencies. [602C-D]      (2) There  is no  legislative sanction  in the  instant case for such pension scheme. The Government by an executive order could  not authorise  payment of  pension scheme.  The pension scheme  is unconstitutional  and the Budget sanction is equally unconstitutional. [602]

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1116 of 1975.      Appeal by  Special Leave  from the  Judgment and  order dated 21st  January, 1975  of the  High Court  of Madras  at Madras in Writ Petition No. 3962 of 1972.      Petitioner in person; for the Appellant.      A.  V.   Rangam  and  (Miss)  A.  Subhashini;  for  the Respondent.

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

    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      RAY, C.J.  This appeal  is by  special leave  from  the judgment dated 21 January, 1975 of the Madras High Court.      The appellant  made an  application under  Article  226 challenging the  power of  the Government  of Tamil  Nadu to grant of  pension to  Anti-Hindi  agitators.  The  appellant further challenged  the power  of the  State to make payment from the Consolidated Fund of the State Exchequer.      Article 351  of the  Constitution says that it shall be the duty  of the  Union Government  to promote the spread of the Hindi language to 602 develop so  that it  may serve as a medium of expression for all the  elements of  the composite  culture of our country. The appellant  contended  that  the  spirit  and  letter  of Article 351  is violated  by the Pension Scheme of the Tamil Nadu State.  The  appellant  said  that  the  agitators  who brought about  violence broke  the law  and were honoured by the pension scheme of the State.      The High  Court said  that  the  Stat  Legislature  has control over  purse and  that  in  the  view  of  the  State Legislature the  agitators against  Hindi fought for a cause and, therefore,  those who  are eligible  should be  granted pension. The  High Court  found that  if a scheme is provide which is  not destructive  of the  Directive Principles  but aimed at  amelorating  those  who  the  legislature  thought deserve that treatment Article 351 was not violated.      The High  Court found that because of Appropriation Act No. 38  of 1974  it could  not  be  said  that  payment  was illegal.      In our  opinion the  pension scheme  formulated by  the Tamil Nadu  Government contains  the vice  of disintegration and fomenting  fissiparous tendencies.  If any State will be engaged in  exciting emotion  against  Hindi  or  any  other language such  provocation has  to  be  nipped  in  the  bud because  these   are   anti-national   and   anti-democratic tendencies.      The Madras Budget Manual 4th Edition was referred to by the appellant.  The  appropriation in the present case shows that a fund was kept apart to meet the pension scheme. There is no  legislative sanction  for such  pension  scheme.  The Government by an executive order could not authorise payment of pension  scheme. The appellant is right in his contention that the  pension scheme  is unconstitutional and the budget sanction is equally unconstitutional.      For these reasons the judgment of the High Court is set aside.      A mandamus  will go directing the respondent to forbear from implementing  the pension  scheme. The  State  will  be competent  to   claim  refund   of  moneys   illegally   and unconstitutionally paid.  The appellant is entitled to costs to be paid by the State. S.R                                           Appeal allowed 603