UNION OF INDIA Vs. RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT & ORS.

                                                                  REPORTABLE

                                     IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                        CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 717 OF 2006


UNION OF INDIA                      .....APPELLANT


                                   Versus


RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT & ORS                       .....RESPONDENTS


                                    WITH



                           T.P.(C) No. 75 of 2012



                               J U D G M E N T



Dr D Y CHANDRACHUD, J

            A Division Bench of the Rajasthan High  Court  by  its  judgment
dated 13 May 2005 issued a direction to the  Union  Government  and  to  its
Secretaries in the  Ministries  of  Civil  Aviation  and  Home  Affairs  “to
include the Chief Justices and the judges of the High Court in the  list  of
persons exempted from pre-embarkation security checks” at  airports  and  to
amend a circular dated 1  May  2002[1]  of  the  Bureau  of  Civil  Aviation
Security (BCAS).  This exercise was directed to be completed  within  thirty
days.  The High Court has directed that certain  suggestions  formulated  by
it for laying down a ‘National Security Policy’ should be considered by  the
Union government.  The Union of India moved this Court under Article 136  of
the Constitution.  Leave has been  granted  on  20  January  2006,  and  the
judgment of the High Court was stayed.

2     The case before the High Court arose from a report that was  published
in the daily edition of the Rajasthan Patrika on  10  February  2000,  of  a
breach of security which took place  at  Sanganer  Airport,  Jaipur.   On  8
February 2000, a person who was to board a flight to Mumbai was detained  by
airport security staff for carrying a revolver  with  six  live  cartridges.
He possessed an arms license which had expired.   After  the  passenger  was
apprehended he was sent to Sanganer police station where  the  revolver  and
live cartridges were seized and a First Information Report  under  the  Arms
Act was lodged.  The passenger left the police  station  and  after  dodging
the duty  officer,  boarded  the  aircraft  destined  for  Mumbai.   He  was
prosecuted for a violation of Sections 21 and 13 of the  Arms  Act  and  was
eventually convicted by the Civil  Judge  and  Judicial  Magistrate  of  the
first class at Sanganer and sentenced to a  fine  of  rupees  one  thousand.
The accused paid the fine and, as the Additional Superintendent  of  Police,
Immigration states before this Court, the revolver and live cartridges  were
released. So much for security.

3     The Rajasthan High Court took suo moto cognizance of the  news  report
and a public interest petition was registered.  During  the  course  of  the
hearing, the Division Bench directed  the  Chief  Security  Officer  of  the
airport, the Secretary to the Home Department and the  Director  General  of
Police to show cause how a security lapse had occurred.

4     In pursuance of the  provisions  contained  in  Section  5(e)  of  the
Aircraft Act, 1934 and Rule 8(a) of the  Aircraft  Rules,  1957,  the  Union
government has made provisions for security screening in Chapter IV  of  the
National Civil Aviation Security Programme (NCASP).   Para 2 deals with pre-
embarkation security checks and divides them broadly into  three  categories
:
                 i)  Manual search of hand baggage;

ii)   Screening   of    hand    baggage    through    an    X-ray    baggage
         inspection system; and

iii) Frisking of passengers

Paragraph 4.24 contains exemptions and is in the following terms :

“4.2.1 Certain categories of VIPs/persons are  exempted  from  frisking  and
searching, screening of their hand baggage if carried  by  themselves.   The
details of the List of such persons have been separately circulated  to  all
concerned.”

5     On 1 May 2002, a circular was  issued  by  BCAS  by  which  the  Union
government exempted (as it describes) categories of “VVIPs/VIPs”  from  pre-
embarkation security  checks  at  civil  airports  in  the  country.   Those
exempted are the following :
President

Vice-President

Prime Minister

Former Presidents

Speaker of Lok Sabha

Chief Justice of India

Judges of Supreme Court

Union Ministers of Cabinet Rank

Governor of States.

Lt. Governors of Union territories

Chief Ministers of States and Union territories

Ambassadors of foreign countries,  Charge D’Affairs and  High  Commissioners
and their spouses

Cabinet Secretary

Visiting foreign dignitaries of the same status as at SL. No.1 to 3,  5,  6,
8 to 10 above.

SPG Protectees”


All others are subjected to pre-embarkation security checks.

6     On 16 September 2002, the Registrar  General  of  the  Rajasthan  High
Court addressed a communication to the Secretary to the Union government  in
the Ministry of Civil Aviation.  While adverting to the above circular,  the
letter stated that the Chief Justice of the  Rajasthan  High  Court  travels
often by air between Jodhpur and Jaipur  in  connection  with  his  official
duties and  was  being  inconvenienced  by  not  being  exempted  from  pre-
embarkation security checks.  The Registrar General drew  attention  to  the
warrant of precedence.  The relevant part of the letter is  extracted  below
:
“it may be mentioned here that as per table of precedence (as  published  on
26th July, 1979), the Hon’ble Chief Justice of  the  High  Courts  stand  at
serial No. 14 and Hon’ble Judges of the High Courts stand at serial  at  No.
20 within their  respective  jurisdiction  and  at  serial  No.  17  and  20
respectively outside their respective jurisdiction.  But they have not  been
exempted from pre-embarkation security  checks  at  civil  airports  in  the
country.  It is pertinent to mention here that Hon’ble the Chief Justice  is
a Constitutional Authority and has often to travel by air  from  Jodhpur  to
Jaipur and vice versa in connection with the discharge of the duties of  His
Lordship’s office.  As such non-inclusion of Hon’ble the  Chief  Justice  in
the list of VVIPs/VIPs who have been exempted from pre-embarkation  security
checks at civil airports in the country issued  by  the  Ministry  of  Civil
Aviation, Government of India, New Delhi will cause great  inconvenience  to
His Lordship.
I am, therefore, directed to request  you  kindly  to  amend  the  aforesaid
circular accordingly and also  to  include  Hon’ble  the  Chief  Justice  of
Rajasthan High Court in the list of persons exempting  from  pre-embarkation
security checks in the civil airports in the Country”.

In reply, the Ministry of Civil Aviation by its letter dated 24 March  2003,
declined to accede to the request after the matter was examined  with  BCAS.
The list of exempted persons, it was stated, was kept to  the  bare  minimum
in view of “the ever increasing threat  perception”.   Subsequently,  on  26
March 2004, a security meeting was held in the  Union  government  with  the
Security Categorisation Committee. In pursuance of this meeting  a  circular
was issued by BCAS  by  which  Chief  Justices  of  High  Courts  were  also
included in the  list  of  exempted  persons.   The  list  as  contained  in
Circular 2 of 2005 reads as follows :
“1.  President
 2.  Vice-President
 3.  Prime Minister
 4.  Former Presidents
 5.  Speaker of Lok Sabha
 6.  Chief Justice of India
 7.  Judges of Supreme Court
 8.  Union Ministers of Cabinet Rank
 9.  Governors of States
10. Chief Ministers of States
11. Chief Justices of High Courts
12.  Lt. Governors of Union territories
 13. Chief Ministers of Union territories
 14. Ambassadors of  foreign  countries,  Charge        D’Affairs  and  High
Commissioners and their spouses
 15. Cabinet Secretary
 16. Visiting foreign dignitaries of the same status as at SL.  No.1  to  3,
5, 6, 8 and 9 above.
 15. SPG Protectees”

On 10 August 2005, Circular 32 of 2005 was issued by  BCAS  in  supersession
of an earlier circular by  which  the  following  were  exempted  from  pre-
embarkation security checks  :
            “1.  President
 2.  Vice-President
 3. Prime Minister
 4. Former Presidents
 5. Speaker of Lok Sabha
 6. Chief Justice of India
 7. Judges of Supreme Court
 8. Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha & Rajya        Sabha
 9.  Union Ministers of Cabinet Rank
10. Deputy Chairman Rajya Sabha and Deputy    Speaker Lok Sabha
11. Governor of States.
12. Chief Ministers of States
13. Chief Justices of the High Courts
14.  Lt. Governors of Union territories
15.  Chief Ministers of Union Territories
16. Ambassadors of  foreign  countries,  Charge         D’Affairs  and  High
Commissioners and their spouses
17. Cabinet Secretary
18.  Visiting foreign dignitaries of the same    status as at  SL.  No.1  to
3, 5, 6, 9 and II above.
19. His Holiness the Dalai Lama
20. SPG Protectees
21. Shri Robert Vadra, while travelling with SPG Protectgees.


By the time that the High Court decided the petition, the Chief Justices  of
the High Courts had been  exempted  from  pre-embarkation  security  checks.
Yet, in its judgment the High Court  issued  a  direction  to  exempt  Chief
Justices and then, also issued a direction to exempt High  Court  judges  as
well :

The High Court held that :
“In not including the Chief Justice and Judges of  the  High  Court  In  the
list  of  persons  exempted  from  pre-embarkation  security   checks,   the
Department of Civil Aviation and Home Affairs have failed  to  maintain  the
status of the Chief Justice and the Judges of  the  High  Court”.  (emphasis
supplied)


7       The rationale which the High Court indicated was that :

 “Circular of exemption also makes  the  people  believe  that  pre-boarding
frisking of Chief Justices and Judges of the High Court  is  very  necessary
in view of ever  increasing  terrorist  threat  perception.   If  the  Chief
Justices and Judges of the High Court  are  not  subjected  to  pre-boarding
frisking, national security may be  in  danger.   The  Department  of  Civil
Aviation and Home Affairs have evidently failed to realise  the  distinction
between the Constitutional and Statutory  functionaries  and  thus  violated
the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in T.N. Seshan Vs.  Union
of India (Supra)”.


The High  Court  indicated  that  in  view  of  the  threat  perception  all
VVIPs/VIPs should  submit  themselves  to  pre-embarkation  security  checks
“without exhibiting their egos” but if certain persons amongst them were  to
be exempted then all constitutional functionaries should be treated at  par.
 The  High  Court  also  proceeded  to  formulate  certain  suggestions  for
formulating a National Security Policy in the following terms :

There should be a clear cut and well thought out National  Security  Policy,
instead of the piece-meal chasing of the ghosts of the past.

A mechanism to task the agencies  in  this  regard  with  proper  powers  of
oversight.  It may be an  individual  or  a  committee  directly  under  the
Hon’ble Prime Minister.

A  single  individual  to  oversee  the  functioning  of  the   intelligence
community, both unformed  and  ununiformed  with  authority  to  demand  the
cooperation of services of the State units, despite the colour of the  State
Governments.

Procedures to avoid duplication and waste of resources”.


The petition was thus disposed of directing  –  (i)  the  inclusion  of  the
Chief Justices and judges of the High Court in the list of persons  exempted
from  pre-embarkation   security   checks;   (ii)   consideration   of   its
observations in regard to the formulation of a National Security Policy.

8     The Union government is in appeal.

9     The High Court has evidently transgressed the ‘wise and  self-imposed’
restraints (as they are described)  on  the  power  of  judicial  review  by
entertaining the writ petition and issuing these directions.  The cause  for
invoking its jurisdiction suo moto was a news report in regard to  a  breach
of  security  at  Sanganer  airport.   Matters  of  security  ought  to   be
determined by authorities  of  the  government  vested  with  the  duty  and
obligation to do so.  Gathering of intelligence information, formulation  of
policies of security,  deciding  on  steps  to  be  taken  to  meet  threats
originating both internally and  externally  are  matters  on  which  courts
singularly lack expertise.  The  breach  of  security  at  Sanganer  airport
undoubtedly was an issue of serious concern and would  have  been  carefully
investigated both in terms of prosecuting the  offender  and  by  revisiting
the reasons for and implications of a security lapse of this  nature.   This
exercise was for the authorities to carry out. It was not for the  Court  in
the exercise of its power of judicial review to suggest a  policy  which  it
considered fit.  The formulation  of  suggestions  by  the  High  Court  for
framing a National Security  Policy  travelled  far  beyond  the  legitimate
domain of judicial review.   Formulation  of  such  a  policy  is  based  on
information and inputs which are not available to the court.  The  court  is
not an expert in such  matters.   Judicial  review  is  concerned  with  the
legality of executive action and the court can interfere  only  where  there
is a breach of law or a violation of the Constitution.

10    A suo moto exercise of the nature embarked  upon  by  the  High  Court
encroaches upon the domain of the executive.  In a democracy  based  on  the
rule of law, government is accountable to the legislature and,  through  it,
to the people.  The powers under Article 226  are  wide  –  wide  enough  to
reach out to injustice wherever it may originate.  These  powers  have  been
construed liberally and have been applied  expansively  where  human  rights
have been violated.  But, the notion of injustice is  relatable  to  justice
under the law.  Justice should not be made to  depend  upon  the  individual
perception of a decision maker on where a balance or  solution  should  lie.
Judges are expected to apply standards which are objective and well  defined
by law and founded upon constitutional principle.  When they do  so,  judges
walk the path on a  road  well-travelled.  When  judicial  creativity  leads
judges to roads less travelled, in search  of  justice,  they  have  yet  to
remain firmly rooted in law and the Constitution.  The  distinction  between
what lies within and what lies outside  the  power  of  judicial  review  is
necessary to preserve the sanctity of judicial  power.   Judicial  power  is
respected and adhered to in a system based on the rule of law precisely  for
its  nuanced  and  restrained  exercise.   If  these  restraints   are   not
maintained the court as an institution would invite a justifiable  criticism
of encroaching upon a terrain on which it  singularly  lacks  expertise  and
which is entrusted for governance to the legislative and executive  arms  of
government. Judgments are enforced, above all, because of the  belief  which
society and arms of governance of a democratic society hold in the  sanctity
of the judicial process. This sanctity is based on  institutional  prestige.
Institutional authority is established  over  long  years,  by  a  steadfast
commitment to a calibrated exercise of judicial power. Fear of  consequences
is one reason why citizens obey the law as well as judicial  decisions.  But
there are far stronger reasons why they do so and the  foundation  for  that
must be carefully preserved. That is the rationale for  the  principle  that
judicial review is confined to cases where there is a breach of  law  or  of
the Constitution.  The judgment of the Rajasthan High Court  is  an  example
of a matter where the court should not have entered.

11    By the time that the Rajasthan High Court dealt  with  the  case,  the
list of exemptions had been modified  to  include  Chief  Justices  of  High
Courts in the list of persons exempted from pre-embarkation security.   Even
assuming that the intervention of the High Court  in  such  a  matter  could
have been invoked in the first place (though we believe it should  not  have
been) the matter should have rested there.  The  cause  for  which  the  suo
moto writ petition was registered was left behind and the episode which  led
to the invocation of  the  jurisdiction  found  no  place  in  the  ultimate
directions.   The  direction  to  include  judges  of  the  High  Court  was
unrelated to the very basis on which the jurisdiction under Article 226  was
invoked.  But that apart, there is a more fundamental reason  why  the  case
should not have been entertained and directions of this nature ought not  to
have been issued.  Matters of security are not issues of prestige. They  are
not matters of ‘status’. The Union government has adopted the position  that
the issue as  to  whether  pre-embarkation  security  exemptions  should  be
granted does not depend only  on  the  warrant  of  precedence.   Among  the
factors which are borne in mind is that the person who is exempted from pre-
embarkation security checks must, according to the  government,  be  secured
by such a level  of  government  security  on  a  24x7  basis,  which  would
virtually preclude the possibility of  any  prohibited  or  dangerous  items
being introduced on board an aircraft  through  his  or  her  baggage.   The
security perception of the Union government is  that  no  exemption  can  be
granted to a dignitary if he/she is not under effective government  security
coverage on a 24x7 basis.  Heads of foreign missions in India  are  exempted
from pre-embarkation security checks on a  reciprocal  basis.   We  are  not
called upon to decide upon the legality or justification for  the  inclusion
of the name of any particular individual in the list of exempted persons  in
these proceedings.  What we have said above is to emphasise  that  the  view
of the Union government is based on  a  considered  assessment  of  security
perceptions and ought not to have been interfered with in  the  manner  that
the High Court did in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226.

12    We accordingly allow the Appeal and set aside  the  impugned  judgment
and order of the High Court dated 13 May 2005.   The  writ  petition  before
the High Court shall  accordingly  stand  dismissed.    There  shall  be  no
orders as to costs.

T.P.(C) No. 75 of 2012

13    This transfer petition has been  instituted  by  the  Commissioner  of
Security (Civil Aviation), BCAS.  The transfer petition has  arisen  in  the
context of an order dated 12 May 2011, passed by a  Division  Bench  of  the
Allahabad High Court.  The order of the High Court  has  been  passed  in  a
Special Appeal arising from a judgment and order of a learned  Single  Judge
dated 11 April 2007 in writ petition 1949/S/S/2000.   It  appears  that  the
proceedings before the learned Single Judge  arose  out  of  a  disciplinary
proceeding.

14    The record of the transfer petition indicates that the High  Court  in
the course of  the  Special  Appeal  has  made  certain  observations  while
issuing a notice to the Director General of the  Bureau  of  Civil  Aviation
Security.  Since the High Court has made  these  observations  in  a  matter
which is unrelated to the issue involved in the Special Appeal, we draw  the
attention of the  High  Court  to  the  principles  enunciated  above  while
disposing of the Civil Appeal filed by  the  Union  government  against  the
judgment of the Rajasthan High Court.  A copy of the  above  judgment  shall
be placed on the record of the Special Appeal filed before the  High  Court.
In the event that the Special Appeal still remain on the file  of  the  High
Court, the High Court shall proceed to  hear  and  dispose  of  the  Special
Appeal accordingly.

15    We clarify that we have made no observations on the merits of  Special
Appeal.  The transfer petition is disposed of.



                                .........................................CJI
                                                                        [T S
                                                                     THAKUR]


                                …..........................................J
                                                                     [Dr D Y
                                                                CHANDRACHUD]



                             ..............................................J
                                                                [L NAGESWARA
                                                                        RAO]

New Delhi
December  14, 2016


-----------------------
[1]   [2] Circular 12 of 2002

BACHPAN BACHAO ANDOLAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

                                                                  REPORTABLE

                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                         CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION


                    WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 906 OF 2014



BACHPAN BACHAO ANDOLAN                   .... PETITIONER
                                         VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS              ..... RESPONDENTS



                           J  U  D  G  M  E  N  T


Dr D Y CHANDRACHUD, J

These proceedings which  have  been  instituted  under  Article  32  of  the
Constitution by  Bachpan  Bachao  Andolan  bring  focus  upon  the  alarming
increase in the use of drugs  and  alcohol  among  children  in  India.  The
petition has been instituted  in  the  public  interest  for  enforcing  the
fundamental  rights  of  children  particularly  those  suffering  from  and
involved in substance use and abuse. The petitioner seeks  the  intervention
of this Court for a  mandamus  to  the  Union  of  India  to  formulate  and
implement a national action  plan  for  children  on  the  issue  of  drugs,
alcohol and substance abuse amongst children. This must,  according  to  the
petitioner, include in its coverage  issues  pertaining  to  identification,
investigation, recovery, counselling and  rehabilitation.  This  essentially
is the main relief  which  has  been  sought.  Other  incidental  directions
include steps to incorporate appropriate content in the  school  curriculum;
creation of a coordinating body; imposing  mandatory  duties  for  reporting
drugs  and  substance  abuse  on  school  principals  and  on  the   police;
establishment of de-addiction centres in every district and  at  the  tehsil
level; protecting children reporting drug use from harm;  preparation  of  a
national database and a direction for  the  registration  of  cases  against
persons supplying tobacco,  alcohol  and  drugs  to  children.  Supplemental
reliefs are claimed in these proceedings.

2     India is home to the largest child population in the world  with  over
forty-four crore children, according to the  census  of  2011.  Among  this,
twenty-four  crore  children  constituting  twenty-four   percent   of   the
population of the country are adolescent. They constitute a  vulnerable  age
group for social, educational, moral and  physical  development.  Protecting
children from wide-spread prevalence  of  substance  abuse  is  one  of  the
biggest policy challenges facing India. Recent reports both of official  and
private agencies indicate that there has been a substantial increase in  the
prevalence of use and abuse of substances in young  children.  A  nationwide
survey was carried out on the basis of  a  representative  household  sample
across the country as  the  National  Family  Health  Survey,  2005-06.  The
petitioner has relied upon several reports which  indicate  the  nature  and
extent of substance abuse in children. Many  of  them  make  recommendations
for the formulation and implementation of policy.


3     In this part of the judgment, we will broadly  summarize  the  content
of the reports mentioned above :
(i)   Report of Planning Commission’s Working Group on Adolescent and  Youth
Development, for formulation of 12th Five Year Plan (2012-17) :
“Substance abuse among young people is on the increase. That  could  be  due
to peer pressure or stress and frustration. Children are not fully aware  of
the full implications of abuse to their  health  and  to  their  life.  Drug
mafia and cartels target young people in cities and towns and once they  are
addicted, it is an easy market for them.”

(ii)  Research Study by National Commission on Protection  of  Child  Rights
(August 2013) :

The final study sample comprised of 4024  children  between  5-18  years  of
age. The study indicates that :

“…Of the boys aged 15-19 years (n=13,009), 28.6% reported  tobacco  use  and
11%  reported  alcohol  use.  Similarly,  in  the  girls  aged  15-19  years
(n=24,811), 3.5% reported tobacco  use  and  1%  reported  alcohol  use.  It
appears to be an upward trend from the previous round of the  survey  (NFHS-
2; 1998-99) where the prevalence of alcohol use was found  to  be  2.4%  for
boys and 0.6% for girls [13). Further,  it  appears  that  among  those  who
‘drink’, a significant percentage of boys and girls  are  using  alcohol  at
least weekly (18.3-39.8%) or even  daily  (3.4-6.8%)…..majority  reported  a
lifetime use of variety of substance. Tobacco  at  83.2%  and  alcohol  (68%
were the most common  substance  followed  by  cannabis  (35.4%),  inhalants
(34.7%), pharmaceutical opiods (18.1%), sedatives  (7.9%)  and  heroin/smack
(7.9%).  A  significant  proportion  (12.6%)  reported  use  of   injectable
substances.”

The study showed  several  glaring  issues  pertaining  to  the  pattern  of
substance abuse amongst children :
Tobacco and inhalants were used almost  on  a  daily  basis,  several  other
substances were being used on less than daily or intermittent basis  in  the
past month

The study showed that the mean age of onset was  lowest  for  tobacco  (12.3
years) followed by onset of inhalants (12.4 years), cannabis  (13.4  years),
alcohol (13.6 years), proceeding then to use of  harder  substances-  opium,
heroin  (14.3-14.9  years)  and  then  finally  use  of  substances  through
injecting route (15.1 years).

The study  highlighted  the  regional  issues  and  preferences.  Choice  of
substance showed some regional variations.

The  study   also   highlighted   various   other   issues   pertaining   to
rehabilitation and reintegration of children in the mainstream of society.

Recommendations :

1)   The study has highlighted the pressing need for  initiating  programmes
for prevention and treatment.  There  is  a  need  to  sensitize  the  state
governments  and  all  the  important  stakeholders  about  the  problem  of
substance use among children in the country;

2)  Prevention programmes must target multiple settings  and  multiple  risk
factors particularly vulnerable  children  such  as  children  of  substance
users, children injecting substances, street children, children involved  in
child labour, trafficked children, children of sex  workers  and  any  other
category most at risk;

3)  Prevention in schools should  include  universal  prevention  programmes
such as education and life skill programmes. School going children  who  are
at risk should  have  access  to  professional  counselling  in  the  school
setting;
4)  There is need for availability of  specialized  treatment  services  for
children who are using substances. These services  should  be  available  in
government  hospitals;  NGOs  funded  by  Ministry  of  Social  Justice  and
Empowerment (MSJE)  and  also  by  NGOs  that  provide  services  to  street
children. Detoxification should be available at government run  de-addiction
centres with rehabilitation  in  NGO/Community  setting  with  linkage  with
NGOs;

5)  Rehabilitation  efforts  focussing  on  skill  building  and  vocational
training should be provided by NGOs;

6)   Juvenile homes and Children homes should  have  service  provision  for
substance using children through linkage with treatment service;

7)     There is need for provision of service by the  TI  NGOs  to  children
who are injecting substances. Action to be taken by NACO/SACS;

8)     Prevention efforts must  target  both  demand  and  supply  reduction
efforts. Supply reduction efforts should limit availability of  tobacco  and
alcohol near residential areas and schools;

9)    Size estimation of substance using children should be carried  out  in
specific high risk areas, metropolitan cities and conflict areas; and

10)  School based surveys should be conducted at a national level  based  on
a representative sample.

(iii) Annual Report of  the  Ministry  of  Social  Justice  and  Empowerment
(2013-2014)[1] :
The report defines “a  victim  of  substance  abuse”  as  a  person  who  is
addicted to/dependent on alcohol, narcotic  drugs,  psychotropic  substances
or any other addictive substances (other than tobacco).
The report states:
Alcoholism and substance abuse is assuming an alarming magnitude. 12th  plan
envisages an urgent need for effective counter measures  through  programmes
in convergence mode

Various Central Ministries need better coordination and convergence.

All  existing  schematic  and  non-schematic  interventions  made   by   the
ministries need to be integrated under a Mission Mode programme.

Preventive measures need to be taken to reduce both supply  and  demand  and
universal access to preventive treatment and  rehabilitation  of  alcoholism
and drug abuse.

Integrated Rehabilitation Centres of  Addicts  (IRCAs)  assisted  under  the
scheme of assistance for the prevention of alcoholism and substance  (drugs)
abuse and for social defence services run by  voluntary  organizations  need
to be strengthened[2].

Broad strategy[3] :

The overall strategy is awareness generation,  identification,  counselling,
treatment and rehabilitation of drug dependent persons though  collaborative
efforts of the Central and State Governments,  Voluntary  organizations  and
other national and international bodies. With a view to reducing the  demand
for and  consumption  of  addictive  substances,  the  thrust  would  be  on
preventive education programmes, comprehensive recovery of addicted  persons
and their reintegration into society.

In order to achieve the objectives of the Policy, the  key  strategies  will
be as follows :


To evolve appropriate models for the prevention of alcoholism and  substance
abuse, treatment and rehabilitation of drug dependent individuals;

To promote collective initiatives and self-help endeavour among  individuals
and groups vulnerable to dependence or found at risk;

To increase community participation and public cooperation in the  reduction
of demand for dependence-producing substances;

To create a pool of trained human resources personnel and service  providers
to strengthen the service delivery mechanisms;

To establish and foster appropriate synergy  between  interventions  by  the
State, corporate initiatives, the voluntary sector  and  other  stakeholders
in the field of substance abuse prevention;

To facilitate networking among policy planners, service providers and  other
stakeholders with an aim to encourage appropriate advocacy;

To promote and sustain a system  of  continuous  monitoring  and  evaluation
including self-correctional mechanism.

It is the aim of the draft National Policy to strive  for  a  society  where
use of intoxicating drugs is discouraged through  awareness  generation  and
prevention, directed towards the young and  adolescents-helping  individuals
make appropriate choices and stay away  from  drugs.  Persons  dependent  on
substance abuse will be encouraged to give up drugs through a  continuum  of
care and treatment services. Reducing the demand  for  addictive  substances
with the active support of  all  stakeholders,  including  governmental  and
civil society organizations, is the goal.

While recognizing the need for services, it is also  necessary  to  increase
the range of services and the access to various modalities of  interventions
for prevention, treatment, rehabilitation with  a  focus  on  the  poor  and
marginalized sections of the society. Special attention  would  be  provided
to groups at high risk.

School children are highly impressionable and are influenced largely by  the
peer  group  behaviour.   Appropriate   interventions   in   the   form   of
curricular/co-curricular contents will be put in place in  the  schools  and
colleges for awareness generation. Interventions will be evidence based  and
supported by sustainable strategies.

Street children/adolescents have always been vulnerable to abuse of  certain
drugs like pharmaceuticals, solvents,  inhalants,  etc.  They  do  not  have
access to health care and there is a total lack  of  preventive  initiatives
for these children as they are cut off from  school  systems  and  community
programmes, which are the general vehicles for such  interventions.  Curbing
the sale and abuse of pharmaceutical and other  such  substances,  including
solvents, glue etc, will be an important element of the  policy.  Rights  of
the children are to be respected and protected. The National Commission  for
Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR)  visualises  a  rights-based  perspective
flowing into National Policies and Programmes, along with nuanced  responses
at the State, District and Block levels, taking care  of  specificities  and
strengths of each region.

  Facilities exclusively  for  such  adolescents  should  be  provided.  The
essential requirements for them include psycho-social  support,  life  skill
training, nutrition and health facilities, educational and formal  training,
recreational facilities including sports and referral  services.  Protective
measures will be met through night shelters/drop-in centres and easy  access
to  health  services  including  counselling  and  de-addiction  facilities.
Police and judiciary should be sensitized about these issues.

  Women and young girls are affected by drug and alcohol  abuse  in  various
ways.  They  suffer  the  economic,  social  and  physical  consequences  as
partners of male drug users. Some of them may  themselves  become  addicted,
increasing their vulnerability for this population sub-groups.

Recognizing the close nexus between substance abuse  and  HIV/AIDS  and  the
fact that drug injecting person is  vulnerable  to  HIV/AIDS,  the  National
Policy envisages that the population at  risk  will  be  sensitized  to  the
threat of and wherever necessary, treated for screening  and  identification
for HIV/AIDS. Drug demand reduction and HIV/AIDS prevention programmes  will
be synergized to address the spread of HIV/AIDS amongst substance abusers.

There will be three different levels of  the  substance  abuse  intervention
strategy as follows :

Primary prevention encouraging abstinence by generating awareness;
Secondary prevention to facilitate the process of behaviour change of  high-
risk  individuals,  early  identification,  treatment  and  counselling   of
affected individuals;
Tertiary  prevention  by  providing  rehabilitation  and  reintegration   of
recovering persons into the social mainstream.

Broad Strategy :

Preventive education & awareness building by multiple agencies

Comprehensive package for recovery of affected individuals

Increase range of services

Develop multiple modalities of interventions

(iv)  National Policy on Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic  Substances  (NDPS)
drafted by the Ministry of Finance, Depament of Revenue :

The Policy has attempted to curb the  menace  of  drug  abuse  and  contains
provisions  for  treatment,  rehabilitation  and  social  reintegration   of
victims of drug abuse :

In Para 55 of the policy, special emphasis is made to  stop  the  menace  of
drug abuse amongst children e.g.- local police should pay special  attention
to areas surrounding schools and colleges; schools and colleges  to  conduct
surveys to  assess  the  level  of  addiction;  educational  authorities  to
include a mandatory and comprehensive chapter  on  drug  abuse  and  illicit
trafficking and its social-economic cost.

The policy, in its Annexure includes a  time  bound  and  specific  Plan  of
Action. The policy has prepared a  ‘Plan  of  Action’  with  regard  to  the
following recommendations: National Drug Control System, National Survey  on
Drug  Abuse,  Demand  Reduction  Activities,  Supply  Reduction  Activities,
Control of licit cultivation of opium poppy and production of opium, etc.

4     We find that  there  have  been  numerous  statements  of  policy,  by
different arms  of  the  government.  What  is  needed  is  a  comprehensive
formulation of a National Plan which will form  the  basis  of  co-ordinated
intervention  by  the  Union  and  State  governments  together  with  their
agencies in collaboration with  expert  institutions  at  the  national  and
international levels having a bearing on the issue.

5      United Nations Conventions


A.    India is a signatory to three United  Nations  Conventions,  having  a
bearing on the issue :
Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961;

Convention on Psychotropic Substances, 1971;

Convention   against    Illicit    Traffic    in    Narcotic    Drugs    and
Psychotropic Substances, 1988.

India has an  international  obligation  to  curb  drug  abuse.  The  United
Nations General Assembly, in its 20th Special Session in 1998, has  accepted
demand reduction as an indispensable pillar of drug control strategies.  The
demand reduction strategy consists of education,  treatment,  rehabilitation
and social integration of drug dependent  persons  for  prevention  of  drug
abuse.

B.    Article 38 of  the  Single  Convention  on  Narcotic  Drugs  of  1961,
suggests the following measures against the abuse of drugs :

“The Parties shall give  special  attention  to  and  take  all  practicable
measures  for  the  prevention  of  abuse  of  drugs  and  for   the   early
identification, treatment, education, after-care, rehabilitation and  social
reintegration of the persons involved and shall  co-ordinate  their  efforts
to these ends.



The Parties shall as far as possible promote the training  of  personnel  in
the  treatment,  after-care,  rehabilitation  and  social  reintegration  of
abusers of drugs.



The Parties shall take all practicable  measures  to  assist  persons  whose
work so requires to gain an understanding of the problems of abuse of  drugs
and of its prevention, and shall also promote such understanding  among  the
general public  if  there  is  a  risk  that  abuse  of  drugs  will  become
widespread.”



C.    Article 12 of SAARC Convention  on  Narcotic  Drugs  and  Psychotropic
Substances[4] :
Measures to eliminate illicit demand for  Narcotic  drugs  and  psychotropic
substances are set out as follows :
Each Member  State  shall  take  appropriate  measures  to  prevent  illicit
cultivation of and to eradicate plants containing narcotic  or  psychotropic
substances, such as opium poppy, coca bush and cannabis  plants,  cultivated
illicitly in its territory.



The  Member  States  may  cooperate  to  increase   the   effectiveness   of
eradication efforts. Towards this end, Member States shall  also  facilitate
the exchange or scientific and technical  information  and  the  conduct  of
research concerning eradication.



The Member States shall adopt appropriate measures aimed at  eliminating  or
reducing illicit demand for  narcotic  drugs  and  psychotropic  substances,
with  a  view  to  reducing  human  suffering  and   eliminating   financial
Incentives for illicit traffic.



The Member States may also take necessary measures for early destruction  or
lawful  disposal  of  the  narcotic  drugs,  psychotropic   substances   and
substances listed in Table I and Table  II  of  the  1988  U.N.  Convention,
which have been seized or confiscated.

D.    Article 33 of the Convention on Rights of Child provides as follows :
“States Parties shall take all appropriate measures, including  legislative,
administrative, social and educational measures, to  protect  children  from
the illicit use of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances as defined  in
the relevant international treaties, and to prevent the use of  children  in
the illicit production and trafficking of such substances.”

E.    The high-level segment of the fifty-second session of  the  Commission
on Narcotic Drugs was held on 11 and 12  March  2009  to  evaluate  progress
made since 1998 towards meeting the goals and  targets  established  at  the
twentieth special session of the General Assembly for
Countering the world drug problem together;

To identify future priorities and areas requiring further action  and  goals
and targets to be established for drug control beyond 2009;

To  adopt  a  political  declaration   and   other   measures   to   enhance
international cooperation.

The member states pledged to adopt  a  political  declaration  and  plan  of
action on international  cooperation  towards  an  integrated  and  balanced
strategy to counter the world drug problem.  The  member  states  reaffirmed
that the ultimate goal of both demand and supply  reduction  strategies  and
sustainable development strategies is to minimize and  eventually  eliminate
the availability and use of illicit drugs  and  psychotropic  substances  in
order to ensure the health  and  welfare  of  humankind  and  encourage  the
exchange of best practices in demand and  supply  reduction,  and  emphasize
that each strategy is ineffective in the absence of the other. They  further
agreed  that  amphetamine-type  stimulants   and   psychotropic   substances
continue  to  pose  a  serious  and   constantly   evolving   challenge   to
international drug control efforts, which  threatens  the  security,  health
and welfare of the population, especially youth, and requires a focused  and
comprehensive national, regional and global response,  based  on  scientific
evidence and experience, in an international and multi-sectoral setting.

6     The situation is compounded  by  the  fact  that  children  are  being
encouraged to become drug peddlers, once a child is addicted to drugs.

Parliamentary intervention

7     Legislative  interventions  since  2000  have  brought  focus  on  the
vulnerabilities of  children,  particularly  in  the  context  of  substance
abuse. The Juvenile Justice (Care and  Protection  of  Children)  Act,  2000
defined the expression “child in need of care and protection” to include  “…
a child who is being  or  is  likely  to  be  grossly  abused,  tortured  or
exploited for the  purpose  of  sexual  abuse  or  illegal  acts…”  (Section
2(d)(vi)).

Section 25 provided penalties in the following terms :
“Section 25. Penalty for giving intoxicating  liquor  or  narcotic  drug  or
psychotropic substance to juvenile or child:

Whoever gives, or causes to be given, to  any  juvenile  or  the  child  any
intoxicating liquor in a public place or any narcotic drug  or  psychotropic
substance except upon the order of duly qualified  medical  practitioner  or
in case of sickness shall be punishable with imprisonment for a  term  which
may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.”


8     Parliament enacted  the  Juvenile  Justice  (Care  and  Protection  of
Children) Act, 2015 which  received  the  assent  of  the  President  on  31
December 2015. The expression ‘child in need  of  care  and  protection’  is
defined in clauses (viii), (ix) and (x) of Section 2(14) as follows :
“Section 2(14).Child in need of care and protection” means a    child—

***
who has been or is being or is likely to be abused,  tortured  or  exploited
for the purpose of sexual abuse or illegal acts; or

who is found vulnerable and is likely to be  inducted  into  drug  abuse  or
trafficking; or

who is being or is likely to be abused for unconscionable gains.”



Section  3  enunciates  the  general  principles  to  be  followed  in   the
administration of the Act.  Among them are :
Principle of presumption of innocence;
Principle of dignity and worth;
Principle of participation;
Principle of best interest;
Principle of family responsibility;
Principle of safety;
Positive measures;
Principle of non-stigmatising semantics;
Principle of non-waiver of rights;
Principle of equality and non-  discrimination;
Principle of right to privacy and  confidentiality;
Principle of institutionalisation as a measure of last resort;
Principle of repatriation and restoration;
Principle of fresh start;
Principle of diversion;
Principles of natural justice.

Sections 77 and 78 provide penalties in the following terms :

“77. Whoever gives, or causes to be given, to  any  child  any  intoxicating
liquor or any narcotic drug or tobacco products or  psychotropic  substance,
except on the order of a  duly  qualified  medical  practitioner,  shall  be
punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend  to  seven
years and shall also be liable to a fine which may extend  up  to  one  lakh
rupees.
78. Whoever uses a child, for  vending,  peddling,  carrying,  supplying  or
smuggling any intoxicating liquor, narcotic drug or psychotropic  substance,
shall be liable for rigorous imprisonment for a term  which  may  extend  to
seven years and shall also be liable to a fine up to one lakh rupees.”


The 2015 Act provides the legal framework. Stringent punishments  have  been
provided. What is required is proper administrative implementation.

The need for a national data base

9     A counter affidavit has been filed in these proceedings on  behalf  of
the Union Ministry of Social  Justice  and  Empowerment.  Surprisingly,  the
affidavit indicates that there  is  no  authentic  data  on  the  number  of
victims of substance abuse in India. According to the Union Government,  the
figures quoted in the  report  of  the  Ministry  of  2013-14  are  only  an
approximation. In order to build a reliable database, a decision  was  taken
to conduct a detailed round of national survey through the  National  Sample
Survey Association (NSSO). NSSO  expressed  its  inability  to  conduct  the
survey.  The Ministry is stated to have approached the All  India  Institute
of Medical Sciences for conducting a national survey on  the  extent,  trend
and pattern of drug abuse.

10    Generation of reliable data is an essential requirement  of  a  policy
aimed at curbing substance abuse. In the  absence  of  accurate  data  at  a
national, state and sectoral level, policy interventions can at best  remain
ad hoc. For, in the absence of data there will be  no  realistic  assessment
of the nature and extent of policy interventions required having  regard  to
(i) vulnerable  states  and  regions;  (ii)  high  risk  populations;  (iii)
requirement of infrastructure, including  de-addiction  centres  across  the
states : (iv) requirement of trained  man  power;  and  (v)  requirement  of
rehabilitation, treatment and counselling services.

11    This is a basic deficiency which the Union government must redress  at
the earliest. We  direct  that  the  Union  Government  shall  expeditiously
conclude the national survey on drug abuse within a  period  of  six  months
from today.

Immediate concerns

The immediate areas requiring remedial attention have been summarized  below
:
Formulation of a national action plan for children;



Creation of a module containing an appropriate curriculum  for  children  of
all age groups in order to keep them away from drugs, alcohol and tobacco;



Setting up of de-addiction centres;



Establishing a standard operating procedure on enforcing the  provisions  of
the  Juvenile  Justice  (Care  and  Protection  of   Children)   Act,   2015
particularly Sections 77 and 78; and



Implementing the action plan with the national policy on narcotic drugs  and
psychotropic substance which has been approved by the Union Cabinet.

The counter affidavit addresses the steps taken by MSJE thus :
“The Ministry implements Central Sector Scheme of Assistance for  Prevention
of Alcoholism and Substance (Drugs) Abuse under which  financial  assistance
is  provided  to  NGOs/Voluntary  organizations   for   running   Integrated
Rehabilitation Centres for Addicts (IRCAs),  organizing  de-addiction  camps
and conducting awareness programmes, about the  ill  effects  of  Alcoholism
and Substance (Drugs) Abuse on the individual,  family,  workplace  and  the
society at large. At present the  Ministry  gives  financial  assistance  to
approximately 400 Integrated Rehabilitation  Centres  for  Addicts  (IRCAs),
which are spread, all over the country, These  IRCAs  aim  at  enabling  the
addict to achieve total assistance and improve their quality  of  life.  The
IRCAs  provide  the  whole  range  of  community  based  services  for   the
identification,  motivation,  counselling,  de-addiction,  after  case   and
rehabilitation for whole person recovery (WPR) of addicts to make  a  person
drug free, crime free and gainfully employed.”



The real need is to ensure the formulation of a National Plan  so  that  all
interventions are in accordance with a properly formulated  national  policy
framework.

12    The Union Government has stated that a national policy on drug  demand
reduction is being finalized.  The  priority  areas  of  intervention  would
include capacity building and training of service providers with a  view  to
build up skilled manpower, education and awareness building  at  all  levels
and inter-sectoral collaboration.  The  policy  also  proposes  to  adopt  a
system of accreditation of de-addiction centres.  The  policy  must  in  our
view address the need for setting up de-addiction centres in every  district
and address specific vulnerabilities particularly in  the  context  of  high
risk populations  including  children.  We  direct  that  this  exercise  be
completed and that a national policy be formulated within a  period  of  six
months from today.

13    As regards the formulation of a curriculum  incorporating  appropriate
aspects of generating awareness and sensitisation,  an  affidavit  has  been
filed on behalf of the Department of Higher Education in the Union  Ministry
of Human Resource Development. On 4 December 2015 directions were issued  in
the present case in pursuance of  which  inclusion  of  issues  relating  to
eradication of alcohol and drug abuse in the New Education Policy was  taken
up. A consultative process has been initiated by  the  Union  Government.  A
committee was constituted on 31 October 2015 for  the  evolution  of  a  New
Education Policy (NEP).     Out of 33 themes identified, 2 themes of  school
education are titled  :  (i)  comprehensive  education  –  ethics,  physical
education, arts and crafts; life skills; and (ii)  focus  on  child  health.
This, it has been  stated,  would  cover  “the  implied  importance  of  the
inclusion of issues pertaining to eradication of alcohol and drug  abuse  in
the NEP.”  MSJE has recommended tobacco and education on drug  abuse  within
two of the above themes. This has been  placed  before  the  Committee.  The
court is informed that the Committee indicated on 30 December 2015 that  the
theme relating to eradication of alcohol and drug abuse will be included  in
its recommendations.

14       The importance of adopting a holistic solution to deal with  issues
pertaining to alcohol, tobacco and drug abuse in the school  curriculum  has
to be adequately emphasized. We are of the view that since the entire  issue
is pending consideration before the government, it would be  appropriate  to
await the ultimate formulation. However, we may indicate  that  rather  than
resting on an “implied inclusion” of such an  important  subject  within  an
extant head or topic, it would be appropriate if the  competent  authorities
consider how children should be protected  from  the  dangers  of  substance
abuse. These are matters which should not be brushed under the  carpet.  The
authorities should consider how children should be  sensitised  (having  due
regard to the age and stage of the child) of the dangers of  drug  use,  the
necessity to  report  drug  use  and  the  need  to  develop  resistance  to
prevailing peer and social pressures.

15    The enormity of the problem makes  it  impractical  for  the  judicial
process to address all issues in one proceeding.  We  have  addressed  three
systemic issues mentioned above. We  have  done  so  on  the  basis  of  the
existing policy framework of the  Union  government,  as  evidenced  by  the
material to which we have adverted in the prefatory part of  this  judgment.
We have not laid down policy in exercise of judicial review. We have  issued
directions  to  enforce  obligations  under  the  existing  legislative  and
administrative framework.

16    We proceed to summarise, our directions to the  Union  government,  as
indicated earlier : The Union government shall
(i)  Complete a national survey and generate a national data base  within  a
period of six months;

(ii)  Formulate and adopt a comprehensive national plan within four  months,
which will among other things also address the areas  of  immediate  concern
noted earlier; and

(iii) Adopt specific content in the school curriculum  under  the  aegis  of
NEP.

17    We dispose  of  the  writ  petition  with  the  aforesaid  directions.
However, we grant liberty to the petitioner to move the  court  in  separate
proceedings when it becomes necessary to do so including on various  aspects
which have been the subject matter of these proceedings.


                             ............................................CJI

                                [T.S. THAKUR]


                           ................................................J

                                     [A.M. KHANWILKAR]


                           ................................................J

                                      [Dr D Y  CHANDRACHUD]


New Delhi
December 14, 2016

-----------------------
[1]
      [2] Relevant part pg. 20, full report at pg. 157
[3]   [4] Page 167
[5]   [6] Page no. 175 onwards
[7]   [8] Article 12, SAARC Convention on Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances

CORRESPONDENT, ANAIKAR ORIENTAL (ARABIC) HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL AND ANR. Vs. A. HAROON AND ANR.

                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                       CIVIL APPEAL NO.  12067 OF 2016
                (Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) 30610 of 2016)


Correspondent, Anaikar Oriental (Arabic)
Higher Secondary School and Anr.         …Appellants

                                   Versus

Haroon and Anr.                                … Respondents





                               J U D G M E N T



Prafulla C. Pant, J.


            Leave granted.

2.       This  appeal  is  directed  against  judgment   and   order   dated
26.09.2016, passed by the High Court of judicature at Madras in Writ  Appeal
No. 427 of 2016, whereby the Writ Appeal is dismissed, affirming  the  order
dated 20.03.2015 of learned Single Judge of the High Court in Writ  Petition
No. 17838 of 2010.

3.     Brief facts of the case are that respondent  no.1  (writ  petitioner)
was P.G. Assistant in Biology, with the  minority  institution  run  by  the
appellants. It is pleaded by the appellants that respondent no. 1  disobeyed
the orders of the Head Master (appellant no.2) and assaulted  him.   He  not
only failed to organize Science Club in the year 2002-2003, but also  failed
to submit Stock Register for the academic  year  2006-2007.  It  is  further
alleged that he failed to submit practical notebooks of  students  of  class
X1 (in 2007).  It is further alleged that in February, 2008  respondent  no.
1 declined to hold XII standard Practical Examination.  It  is  also  stated
that respondent no. 1 did not  comply  with  the  instruction  of  the  Head
Master  to  participate  in  rain  water  harvest  project.  On  24.06.2008,
respondent no. 1 said  to  have  hurled  abuses  at  the  Head  Master,  and
assaulted him.

4.    A charge memo was served on respondent no. 1 and he was  placed  under
suspension. After enquiry, his services were terminated on  01.09.2008.   He
preferred an appeal before respondent no. 2,  i.e.  Joint  Director,  School
Education, Chennai. Respondent no.1 simultaneously filed Writ  Petition  No.
25980 of 2008 which  was  disposed  of  by  the  High  Court  on  03.11.2008
directing the  second  respondent  to  consider  the  appeal  filed  by  the
respondent no. 1. Said order was later  modified  on  24.03.2009,  observing
that if any appellate  tribunal  is  constituted,  respondent  no.  2  shall
direct the respondent no. 1 to approach such authority. Finally,  respondent
no. 2 considered the  appeal  and  dismissed  the  same,  vide  order  dated
09.06.2010, and regard being had to the conduct of the employee it was  held
that there was no illegality in the termination order.  On  this  respondent
no. 1 filed Writ Petition No.  17838  of  2010,  challenging  the  order  of
termination, and the order passed by  the  appellate  authority  (respondent
no. 2).

5.    Learned Single  Judge  of  the  High  Court  allowed  the  above  writ
petition, vide order  dated  20.03.2015,  holding  that  the  principles  of
natural justice have not been followed in the present case. It  is  observed
that management cannot act  as  complainant,  prosecution  and  judge.   The
Division Bench, vide impugned order, affirmed the order passed in  the  writ
petition No. 17838 of 2010.

6.    This court, on 28.10.2016, after hearing the learned counsel  for  the
parties, passed following order in the Special Leave Petition (c) No.  30610
of 2016 ( from which this appeal has arisen).

“As prayed on behalf of the respondents, let the matter be listed after  two
weeks.

Till the next date, contempt proceedings, if any, arising from the  Impugned
order shall remain stayed.

We may record  here  that  there  is  a  proposal  made  on  behalf  of  the
petitioners for a lump sum monentary payment between 40 to 50 lakhs  by  way
of golden hand shake  instead  of  reinstatement  and  back  wages.  Learned
counsel for the respondent shall seek instruction on this issue”.



7.    On 05.12.2016, when this matter was taken up, Shri Raju  Ramachandran,
Senior Advocate, on behalf of the appellants submitted that  the  appellants
are ready to pay lump sum amount maximum to the  extent  of  Rs.50  lacs  to
respondent no. 1 by way of golden hand  shake  for  reinstatement  and  back
wages, to which Shri Neeraj Shekhar, learned counsel for respondent  no.  1,
responded by saying that he leaves it to the discretion of this  Court.   We
think it relevant to mention here that it is not clear from the record  that
respondent no. 1  did  not  get  engaged  in  some  other  employment  after
termination of service.

8.    In view of the above, considering the facts and circumstances  of  the
present case, particularly the fact that the respondent no. 1 has  lost  the
confidence of management (appellants), we are of the opinion that the  order
of reinstatement with  back  wages  can  be  substituted  by  directing  the
appellants to  pay  Rs.50  lacs  as  lump  sum  amount  of  compensation  to
respondent no. 1, which appears to be just and proper.

9.    Accordingly, this appeal is disposed with direction to the  appellants
to pay compensation of Rs.50 lacs to respondent no. 1  within  a  period  of
two months from the date of this order.  In case  the  payment  is  made  as
directed above, the order of reinstatement and back wages  shall  stand  set
aside  and  the  impugned  order  passed  by  the  High  Court  shall  stand
interfered with and modified to the  extent  as  above,  failing  which  the
appeal shall stand dismissed. No order as to costs.



                                                           ……………….....…………J.
                                                            [J. Chelameswar]



                                                             .……………….……………J.
New Delhi;                          [Prafulla C. Pant]
December 14, 2016.



                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                       CIVIL APPEAL NO.  12067 OF 2016
                (Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) 30610 of 2016)

Correspondent, Anaikar Oriental (Arabic)
Higher Secondary School and Anr.         …Appellants
                                   Versus
Haroon and Anr.                                … Respondents

                             O R D E R

      When the judgment is delivered,  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the
appellants prays  for  time  to  make  payment  in  terms  of  the  judgment
delivered today.
      Heard learned counsel for the respondent(s).
      In the circumstances, we deem it appropriate to permit the  appellants
to pay  the  amount  mentioned  in  the  judgment  in  three  equal  monthly
instalments, the first of which shall be payable on or before 10th  January,
2017.  The other two instalments shall be paid on or before  10th  of  other
succeeding months.
                                                           ……………….....…………J.
                                                            [J. Chelameswar]


                                                             .……………….……………J.
New Delhi;                          [Prafulla C. Pant]
December 14, 2016.

whether there is an agreement between the parties; whether disputes which are subject-matter of the suit fall within the scope of arbitration; and whether the reliefs sought in the suit are those that can be adjudicated and granted in arbitration. In view of the above, we think it just and proper to request the High Court to decide the application afresh in the light of law laid down by this Court in para 19 of the judgment in Booz Allen and Hamilton Inc. v. SBI Homes Finance Limited and others (supra) except the point, which has already been answered in the present case by us.

                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                       CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12066 OF 2016
                (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 34016 of 2015)


Greaves Cotton Limited                       … Appellant

                                   Versus

United Machinery and Appliances              …Respondent






                               J U D G M E N T


Prafulla C. Pant,J.


Leave granted.

This appeal is directed against order dated 16.09.2015, passed by  the  High
Court of Judicature at Calcutta in GA No. 2998 of  2015  (in  CS  No.  2  of
2015), whereby said Court has rejected the application moved  under  Section
5 read with Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to  get
the dispute referred to arbitral tribunal.

Brief facts of the case are that appellant Greaves Cotton are  manufacturers
of, inter alia, diesel engines.  Respondent United Machinery and  Appliances
are  manufacturers  of  diesel  generator  sets.   An  agreement  containing
arbitration clause was executed between them for supply  of  diesel  engines
by the appellant to  the  respondent  for  using  the  same  in  the  diesel
gensets.  Arbitration clause contained in Article 10.1  of  agreement  dated
02.07.2007 (copy Annexure P-1) reads as under: -

“10.1 Any dispute or difference whatsoever arising between the  parties  out
of or relating to the construction, meaning, scope, operation or  effect  of
this Agreement or the validity or the breach thereof shall be referred to  a
Sole Arbitrator to be appointed by Greaves.  The decision of the  Arbitrator
shall be final and binding upon  the  parties.   The  venue  of  arbitration
shall be Mumbai.  The arbitration proceedings shall, in all  other  aspects,
be governed by the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,  1996
or any subsequent statutory enactment in place thereof.”

The plaintiff-respondent filed civil suit (CS No. 2 of 2015) seeking  decree
for an amount of Rs.4,92,76,854/- towards the loss and damages  suffered  by
it on account of alleged breach  of  contract  on  the  part  of  defendant-
appellant.  The High Court, in its original  side,  issued  summons  in  the
suit on 06.01.2015 to the appellant.  On the other hand, the appellant  sent
communication to the respondent claiming that it was the respondent who  has
to  pay  outstanding  dues  of  Rs.1,04,53,103/-  to  the  appellant.    The
appellant, in response to the summons, on 07.07.2015  moved  an  application
(copy Annexure P-6) before the High Court  seeking  extension  of  time  for
eight weeks to file written statement and  invoked  the  arbitration  clause
contained in the agreement  dated  02.07.2007  by  sending  a  letter  dated
08.07.2015 (copy Annexure P-7) to the  respondent,  in  response  to  which,
vide communication dated 13.07.2015  (copy  Annexure  P-7),  it  denied  the
claim of the appellant, and objected to invocation of arbitration clause  on
the ground of pendency of civil suit before  the  High  Court.   Thereafter,
the appellant moved Application GA No. 2998 of  2015  (copy  Annexure  P-10)
under Section 5 read with Section 8  of  the  Arbitration  and  Conciliation
Act, 1996 (for short “the 1996 Act”), in the suit seeking reference  of  the
disputes between the parties forming the subject-matter  of  the  suit,  for
arbitration, which is rejected by the High Court  on  the  ground  that  the
appellant has, by moving application for extension of time to  file  written
statement, waived  its  right  to  seek  arbitration.   Hence,  this  appeal
through special leave.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

Before further discussion, it is  just  and  proper  to  refer  to  relevant
provisions of law applicable to  the  case.   Section  5  of  the  1996  Act
provides that notwithstanding anything contained in any other  law  for  the
time being in force, in matters governed by Part I,  no  judicial  authority
shall intervene except where so provided in the said Part of the Act.   Sub-
section (1)  of  Section  8  of  the  1996  Act,  as  it  existed  prior  to
23.10.2015, provided that a judicial authority before  which  an  action  is
brought in a matter which is the subject  of  an  arbitration  shall,  if  a
party so applies not later than when submitting his first statement  on  the
substance of the dispute, refer the parties to arbitration.

The issue before us for consideration is whether filing  of  an  application
for extension of time to file written statement before a judicial  authority
constitutes – ‘submitting first statement on the substance of  the  dispute’
or not.

For appreciating the intention of the Legislature, it is  necessary  for  us
to examine the change in law brought about by the 1996 Act.   In  Manna  Lal
Kedia and ors. v. State of  Bihar  and  ors.[1],  comparing  the  provisions
contained in Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 and Section  8  of  the
1996 Act, High Court of Patna has opined as follows: -

“10.  In terms of the Section 34 of the old Act  a  party  was  required  to
apply for reference of the dispute to the arbitrator before  filing  written
statement or taking any other step in the proceeding.  The words “or  taking
any  other  step”  were  interpreted  to  include   even   application   for
adjournment,  for  filing  written  statement.    This   obviously   created
anomalies,  not  only  frustrating  the  objects  of  arbitration  but  also
resulting in injustice in many cases.  In order to  bring  about  change  in
this regard in the New Act in Section 8 (1), provision has been made to  the
effect that the party intending to go in for arbitration must do so  in  his
“first statement on the substance of the dispute” and not later  than  that.
In other words, only if in the first  statement  on  the  substance  of  the
dispute he does not make such prayer that he is debarred  from  making  that
prayer later.  Section 8(1) of the New Act is,  thus,  an  Improvement  upon
the provisions of Section 34 of the old Act…….”

In Rashtriya Ispat  Nigam  Ltd.  and  another  v.  Verma  Transport  Co.[2],
interpreting the  expression  “first  statement  on  the  substance  of  the
dispute”, this Court has held as under: -

“36.  The expression “first statement  on  the  substance  of  the  dispute”
contained in Section 8(1) of the 1996 Act must be  contradistinguished  with
the expression “written statement”.  It employs submission of the  party  to
the jurisdiction of the judicial authority.  What is, therefore,  needed  is
a finding on the part of the judicial authority that the  party  has  waived
its right to invoke the arbitration clause.   If  an  application  is  filed
before actually filing the first statement on the substance of the  dispute,
in our opinion, the party cannot  be  said  to  have  waived  its  right  or
acquiesced itself to the jurisdiction of the  court.   What  is,  therefore,
material is as to whether the petitioner has filed his  first  statement  on
the substance of the dispute or not, if not, his application  under  Section
8 of the 1996 Act, may not be held wholly unmaintainable…..”

This Court in Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. (supra) further held as under: -

“42.  Waiver of a right on the part of  a  defendant  to  the  lis  must  be
gathered from the fact situation obtained in  each  case.   In  the  instant
case, the court had already passed an ad interim ex parte  injunction.   The
appellants were bound to respond to the notice issued by the  Court.   While
doing so, they raised a specific plea of bar of the  suit  in  view  of  the
existence of an arbitration agreement.  Having regard to the  provisions  of
the Act, they had, thus, shown their unequivocal intention to  question  the
maintainability of the suit on the aforementioned ground.”

In Booz Allen and Hamilton Inc. v. SBI Homes Finance Limited and  others[3],
while dealing with  the  question,  this  Court,  in  paragraph  19  of  the
judgment, has laid down the law on the similar issue as under: -

“19.  Where a suit is  filed  by  one  of  the  parties  to  an  arbitration
agreement against the other parties to the  arbitration  agreement,  and  if
the defendants file an application under Section 8 stating that the  parties
should be referred to arbitration, the court (judicial authority) will  have
to decide:


whether there is an arbitration agreement among the parties;


whether all  the  parties  to  the  suit  are  parties  to  the  arbitration
agreement;

whether the disputes which are the subject-matter of the  suit  fall  within
the scope of arbitration agreement;


whether the defendant  had  applied  under  Section  8  of  the  Act  before
submitting his first statement on the substance of the dispute; and

whether the reliefs sought in the suit are those  that  can  be  adjudicated
and granted in an arbitration.”

This Court in Booz Allen and Hamilton Inc. (supra), has further observed  in
paragraph 25 as under: -

“25.  Not only filing of the written statement in a suit, but filing of  any
statement, application, affidavit by a defendant prior to the filing of  the
written statement will be construed as “submission of  a  statement  on  the
substance     of     the     dispute”,      if      by      filing      such
statement/application/affidavit,  the  defendant  shows  his  intention   to
submit himself to the jurisdiction of the court  and  waives  his  right  to
seek reference to arbitration.  But filing of a reply by a defendant, to  an
application   for   temporary   injunction/attachment    before    judgment/
appointment of Receiver, cannot be considered as submission of  a  statement
on the substance of the dispute, as that is done to avoid an  interim  order
being made against him.”

In view of the law laid down by this Court, as above, we find  it  difficult
to agree with the High Court that in  the  present  case  merely  moving  an
application seeking  further  time  of  eight  weeks  to  file  the  written
statement would amount to making first statement on  the  substance  of  the
dispute.  In our opinion, filing of an  application  without  reply  to  the
allegations of the  plaint  does  not  constitute  first  statement  on  the
substance of the dispute.  It does not appear  from  the  language  of  sub-
section (1) of Section 8 of the 1996 Act that the  Legislature  intended  to
include such a step like moving simple application of seeking  extension  of
time to file written statement as first statement on the  substance  of  the
dispute.  Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case,  as
already narrated above, we are unable to hold that the appellant, by  moving
an application for  extension  of  time  of  eight  weeks  to  file  written
statement, has waived right  to  object  to  the  jurisdiction  of  judicial
authority.

From  the  order  impugned,  it  also  reflects  that  before  disposing  of
application under Section 8 of the 1996 Act the High Court  has  not  looked
into questions as to whether there is  an  agreement  between  the  parties;
whether disputes which are subject-matter of the suit fall within the  scope
of arbitration; and whether the reliefs sought in the suit  are  those  that
can be adjudicated and granted in arbitration.  In view  of  the  above,  we
think  it  just  and  proper  to  request  the  High  Court  to  decide  the
application afresh in the light of law laid down by this Court  in  para  19
of the judgment in Booz  Allen  and  Hamilton  Inc.  v.  SBI  Homes  Finance
Limited and  others  (supra)  except  the  point,  which  has  already  been
answered in the present case by us.

Accordingly the appeal is allowed.  The impugned order, passed by  the  High
Court is set aside.  The High Court is requested to decide  the  application
(GA No. 2998 of 2015 in CS No. 2 of 2015) in the light  of  observation,  as
above.  No order as to costs.


                                                           ……………….....…………J.
                                                            [J. Chelameswar]



                                                             .……………….……………J.
New Delhi;                        [Prafulla C. Pant]
December 14, 2016.


-----------------------
[1]    AIR 2000 Pat 91
[2]    (2006) 7 SCC 275
[3]    (2011) 5 SCC 532