Citations: DP Joshi Vs State of Madhya Bharat AIR 1955 SC 334
Date of Judgement: 27/01/1955
Equivalent citations: 1955 AIR 334, 1955 SCR (1)1215
Case No: Petition No. 387 of 1954
Case Type: Petition
Petitioner: D.P. Joshi
Respondent: The State of Madhya Bharat and Ors.
Bench: Constitutional Bench comprising ofHon’ble Chief Justice B.K.Mukherjee; Justice Vivian Bose, Justice B. Jagannadhadas, Justice T.L. Venkatarama Aiyar and Justice B. P. Sinha
Court: Supreme Court of India
Statutes Referred:
- Constitution of India, 1950; Articles 15, 15(1), 32, 44
Cases referred:
- Bitstam Mody Vs State
- Sumitra Devi Vs State (I.L.R. 1953 Madhya Bharat 87)
- Whicker Vs Hume ([1859] 28 L.J. Ch. 396)
- Somerville Vs Somerville ([1801] 5 Ves. 750)
- Winans Vs Attorney General (1904 A.C. 287)
- Udny Vs Udny ([1869] L.R. I Sc. & Div. 441)
- Mc mullen Vs Wadsworth ([1889] 14 A.C. 631)
- The State of Punjab Vs Ajaib Singh and another ([1953] S.C.R. 254)
- Om Prakash Vs The State (A.I.R. 1953 Punjab 93)
Facts:
- ‘Mahatma Gandhi Memorial Medical College’ in Indore was a private enterprise but was taken over by the Madhya Bharat Government later. When the College was taken over by the Government, it introduced a law that all students, who lived in Madhya Bharat i.e. “citizens of Bonafide of the country”, were exempted from the amount that had to be paid to the college and those who are not were charged a capitulations fee of Rs.1300 nominees and Rs.1500 to others.
- The law in question is merely administrative order, and that even though the word “law” can be freely translated, it should be limited to what is a legal power and you cannot understand what an administrative order is.
- The writ petition was filed, before the Supreme court under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, against the new rule by Madhya Bharat government claiming that the rule violated the right to equality enshrined under the Constitution of India under Article 14 and 15.
Issue Involved:
- Whether the rule regarding the domicile of the candidate infringed the Fundamental Rights guaranteed by Articles 14 and 15(1) of the Indian Constitution?
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ which restrains the concerned authorities from imposing capitation fee if the said rule violates the Constitution?
Contention of Appellant:
- The main contention of the petitioner stands that the rule enacted by the state is in contravention of Article 15 of the Constitution since it discriminates between students on the basis of ‘place of birth’.
- Considerable emphasis was laid on clauses (a) and (b) of the rule wherein ‘residence’ is defined in terms of domicile, and it was argued that the original domicile, as it is termed in the rules, could in substance mean only place of birth and that therefore the exemption based on domicile was, in effect, an exemption based on place of birth under an alias.
- Clause (d) introduced a new element unconnected with domicile or residence which formed the basis of the previous clause, that it put foreign nationals on a more advantageous footing than Indian citizens, and that the entire rule must be discarded as based on no rational or intelligible principle.
- A writ prohibiting the collection of such capitation fee is prayed along with a refund of three thousand rupees of the capitation fee of the initial years.
Contention of Respondent:
- The rule in question is a mere administrative or executive order, and that however liberally the word “law” might be construed, it should be limited to what is an expression of the legislative power and cannot comprehend what is an executive order.
- As the institution was originally under private management and the State took it over subject to the conditions under which it was run, it was bound to enforce the rule relating to the payment of capitation fee which was previously in operation.
- The requirement with respect to the imposition of capitation fee from students who are not residents of Madhya Bharat did not infringe Article 14 or 15(1) of the Indian Constitution.
Judgement:
The Writ was Rejected.
- It was held by the Court in majority that the above mentioned rule was not violation of the Fundamental rights enshrined under Article 15(1) of Indian Constitution. The court held by majority that “Place of Birth” and “Place of Residence” are two different and distinct things both in facts and law and the imposition of capitation fees was based on “Place of Residence” rather than “Place of birth” and Article 15(1) of Indian Constitution deals with discrimination based on “Place of birth” and it can’t be read as “Place of residence”.
- The court further held that the rule was also not violation of Article 14 of Indian Constitution because the classification was just and reasonable because it was based on a ground which was a primary duty of state i.e. to encourage education within its geographical boundaries.
- Therefore, the majority of the Judges rejected the writ petition by the Supreme Court, & held that the state law of the state of Madhya Bharat did not violate the principles of the constitution.
Ratio Decidendi:
- The Supreme Court held that the classification among the residents and non-resident is just, fair and reasonable not arbitrary, artificial or evasive and there is a relation between the basis of classification and the object of the statute.
- After hearing both sides’ arguments and the facts of the case, the court had five judges, with Justice(s) Mukherjee, C.J, Bose, Ayyar and Sinha giving a favourable judgment and Justice Jagannadhas having another opinion.
- The majority of bench determined that local law does not violate any of the Basic Rights set out in Section 15 (1) of the Indian Constitution. The court also ruled that the “Birth Place” and the “Residence” are two separate and distinct facts and that the imposition of capitation costs was based on “Residence” rather than “Birthplace” and Section 15 (1) of the Indian Constitution deals with discrimination based on “Place of Birth” and cannot be read as “Place of Residence”.
- The bench suggests that the new domicile law does not violate Section 14 of the Indian Constitution because the separation was fair and reasonable. After all, it was based on the foundation which was the main function of the state which is to promote education within the local boundaries.
- The dissenting judgment was given by Justice Jagannadhas, who ruled that although “place of birth” and “place of domicile” were two separate things, there was nothing like a regional residence in Indian law and less than that provided. The statement that the settlement in Madhya Bharat is intended to transfer the “Place of Birth” and as a result, this law, in particular, violates Article 15 (1) of the Constitution and that distinction cannot be called a reasonable distinction under Article 14 of Indian constitution.
Conclusion:
The case debated on whether the rule that no capitalization fee should be charged from students who were bona fides residents of Madhya Bharat, but it should be charged from non-Madhya Bharat students, infringed the Constitution of India. The Court ruled that the rule did not infringe the fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 15(1) of the Constitution of India.
Further, that the imposition of capitalization fees on some of the students and not on others was not discriminatory as it was not in contravention of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It was not violating Article 15(1) of Indian Constitution as discrimination was based on residence and not on the place of birth. Residence and place of birth are two distinct concepts with different connotations.
Drafted by: Mumuksha Singh, University of Rajasthan, Five-year Law College.
Edited by: Aashima Kakkar, Associate Editor, Law Insider
Published On: November 15, 2021 at 19:17 IST