STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -

(2.) "India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States." Thevery first mandate of the first article of our Constitution to which we oweallegiance thus prohibits, by necessary implication, according to the plaintiff inthe original suit now before us under Article 131 of the Constitution of India,any constitutionally unjustifiable trespass by the" Union government uponthe domain of the powers of the States. The State of Karnataka, has,therefore sued, for a declaration., that a notification dated23/05/1977(hereinafter referred to as 'the central Notification') constituting aCommission of Inquiry in purported exercise of its powers under S. 3of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'theAct'), is illegal and ultra vires. This declaration is sought on one of twoalternative grounds : firstly, that the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, doesnot "authorise the central government to constitute a Commission ofInquiry in regard to matters falling exclusively within the sphere of theState's legislative and executive power"; and, secondly, that if the provisionsof the Act do cover the central government Notification, they areultra vires for contravention of "the terms of the Constitution as well as thefederal structure implicit and accepted as an inviolable basic feature of theConstitution". Consequentially, 'the plaintiff seeks a perpetual injunction torestrain the respondents, the Union of India and Shri A. N. Grover, the oneman Commission of Inquiry into "charges of corruption, nepotism, favouritism and misuse of governmental power against the Chief Minister andother Ministers of the State of Karnataka", from acting under the centralGovernment's notification.

(3.) THE Chief Minister, in his reply, complains that "Slanderous propaganda has been unleashed without any verification of the truth or otherwise ofthe allegations or past history of most of the charges". He points out thatbroadcasts and Press reports had given him an intimation of the allegationssent to him even before they were received by him with the Home Minister'sletter. THE Chief Minister said: "It is reasonable to presume that the<PG>626</PG>object of this campaign of slander is mainly to tarnish the image of theCongress party, my colleagues and myself in an effort to gain, if possible,power for your party in the State immediately after your party was totallyrejected by the electorate of the State in the recent Lok Sabha elections".THE insinuation was that the whole object of manipulated charges againstthe Chief Minister was to vilify him and his government and to bring himdown in the estimation of the public so as to destroy the support which theCongress party had from the people of the State. It was thus a charge of malice in fact.