Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

R. R. DALAVAI versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU

Decided
7 May 1976
Judges listed
A.N. RAY (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[1976] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 601 · 1976 INSC 147
Also cited as
  • AIR 1976 SC 1559 (3 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Not shown
1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

RAY, CJ. This 'dppeal is by special leave from the judgment dated 21 January, 1975 of the Madras High Court.

p. 601, margin G

The appellant made an application under Article 226 challenging the, power of the GovernmetM 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 Consolidatect Fund of the State Exchequer.

p. 601, margin G

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 drvclop so that it may serve as a medium of expression for all the elements of the c~mposite culture of our country. The appellant contended that the sprrit 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.

pp. 601–602, margin H

The High Court said that the State 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 tLat if a scheme is provided which is not destructive of the Directive Principles but aimed at ameliorating those who the legislature thought deserve that treatment Article 351 was not violated.

p. 602, margin B

The High Court found that because of Appropriation Act No. 38 of 1974 it could not be said that payment was illegal.

p. 602, margin C

In our opinion the pension scheme formulated by the Tumil Nadu Government c<Yntains 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.

p. 602, margin C

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 pensiou scheme. The appellant is right in his contention that the pension scheme is unconstitutional and the budget sanction is equally unconstitutional.

p. 602, margin D

For these reasons the judgment of the High Court is set aside.

p. 602, margin E

A mandamus will go directing the responde',1t 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.

p. 602, margin E

Appeal allowed

p. 602, margin F