STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH versus AJAY SINGH AND ORS. ETC.

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH versus AJAY SINGH AND ORS. ETC.

The Government's power to replace or substitute the sole member of a Commission of Inquiry constituted under Section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 is not available either under the Act or by invoking Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 or any other general power. The Act restricts government...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: State of Madhya Pradesh; Respondent: Ajay Singh
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
02 November 1992
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (special Leave) / Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Commissions of Inquiry, Delegated Legislation, Statutory Interpretation, Government Notification Powers
Administrative Law Commissions of Inquiry Delegated Legislation Statutory Interpretation Government Notification Powers

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

State of Madhya Pradesh

Appellant

Ajay Singh

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (special Leave) / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the State Government can replace the sole member of a Commission of Inquiry under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 with another person during continuance.
  2. 2 Whether Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 can be invoked to read such power into the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952.

Ratio Decidendi

The Government's power to replace or substitute the sole member of a Commission of Inquiry constituted under Section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 is not available either under the Act or by invoking Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 or any other general power. The Act restricts government control after constitution of the Commission to situations expressly provided, such as filling a vacancy or discontinuing the Commission. No implicit or residual power enables such reconstitution by replacement. Therefore, notifications appointing new members were invalid.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Notifications dated 10.7.1991 and 9.1.1992 appointing new members quashed.
  • No costs awarded.