{"id":38881,"date":"1988-09-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1988-09-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-somasundram-viswanath-ors-on-22-september-1988"},"modified":"2015-05-18T21:00:46","modified_gmt":"2015-05-18T15:30:46","slug":"union-of-india-ors-vs-somasundram-viswanath-ors-on-22-september-1988","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-somasundram-viswanath-ors-on-22-september-1988","title":{"rendered":"Union Of India & Ors vs Somasundram Viswanath & Ors on 22 September, 1988"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Union Of India & Ors vs Somasundram Viswanath & Ors on 22 September, 1988<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1988 AIR 2255, \t\t 1988 SCR Supl. (3) 146<\/div>\n
Author: E Venkataramiah<\/div>\n
Bench: Venkataramiah, E.S. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nUNION OF INDIA & ORS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSOMASUNDRAM VISWANATH & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT22\/09\/1988\n\nBENCH:\nVENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J)\nBENCH:\nVENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J)\nOJHA, N.D. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1988 AIR 2255\t\t  1988 SCR  Supl. (3) 146\n 1989 SCC  (1) 175\t  JT 1988 (3)\t724\n 1988 SCALE  (2)823\n CITATOR INFO :\n F\t    1990 SC 166\t (10)\n\n\nACT:\n    Civil Services: Government of India O.M. dated  December\n30, 1976 Procedure for making promotions and functioning  of\nDepartmental Promotion Committee--D.P.C.--One of the Members\nof  Committee  not  present  at\t the  meeting  of   D.P.C.--\nProceedings whether vitiated.\n%\n    Constitution  of  India 1950 Articles 73,  162  and\t 309\nCivil  Services--Recruitment  and  promotion--Norms--Can  be\nlaid  down  either by law of appropriate Legislature  or  by\nstatutory    service   rules-Conflict\tbetween\t   executive\ninstructions and rules--Rules prevail.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n    Somasundram\t Viswanath,  Respondent\t No.  1\t herein\t was\nworking\t as  an\t officer in the\t Defence  Accounts  Service.\nPromotions   to\t  Level\t I  &  Level  II   of\tthe   Senior\nAdministrative\tGrade of the said  Service were governed  by\nthe  Indian  Defence Accounts Service  (Recruitment)  Rules,\nl95X  (as  amended  from time to time)\tpromulgated  by\t the\nPresident  of  India under the proviso to Art.\t309  of\t the\nConstitution  of  India. Under the  Rules,  recruitments  by\npromotion to the senior administrative posts were to be made\nby  Selection  on  merit on the recommendations\t of  a\tduly\nconstituted Departmental Promotion Committee. In  accordance\nwith  the said Rules, when the case of the  Respondent\tcame\nwithin the Zone of consideration for promotion to the  cadre\nof   controller\t of Defence Accounts, the  same\t was  placed\nbefore\tthe Departmental Promotion Committee, and  the\tsaid\nCommittee  in  order  to  make\tappropriate  recommendations\nconvened its meeting on 7.8.1986. At the said meeting one of\nits  members i.e. the Secretary to the Ministry\t of  Defence\ncould not be present even though he was duly notified  about\nthe  date  and\ttime  of the meeting.  In  his\tabsence\t the\nremaining  members met and made the recommendation. The\t 1st\nRespondent  was graded good' and was not put in\t the  Select\npanel.\n    Aggrieved  by  the\tsaid  decision\tRespondent  filed  a\nPetition   before  the\tCentral\t  Administrative   Tribunal,\nJabalpur   Bench,   challenging\t  the\tvalidity   of\t the\nrecommendations\t made by the Department Promotion  Committee\nand prayed for an order directing the appellant-union of\n\t\t\t\t\t\t   PG NO 146\n\t\t\t\t\t\t   PG NO 147\nIndia--not  to promote his juniors to the higher grade.\t The\nprincipal  contention  raised by the Respondent\t before\t the\nTribunal  was that the Departmental Promotion Committee\t was\nnot properly constituted, as one of its members, was  absent\nwith  the  result  the proceedings of its  meeting  held  on\n7.8.1986 stood vitiated and recommendation made by it should\nnot  be acted upon. On the other hand the  Deptt.  contended\nthat the proceedings of the Committee were protected by\t the\nadministrative\tinstructions  issued by\t the  Government  of\nIndia  with  regard to the procedure to be followed  by\t the\nD.P.C. In reply thereto the 1st Respondent pleaded that\t the\nadministrative\tinstructions  issued by\t the  Government  of\nIndia could not override the rules made under the proviso to\nArt. 309 of the Constitution and the same has to be ignored.\n    On\tconsideration of the rival contentions\tthe  Central\nAdministrative\tTribunal  came to the  conclusion  that\t the\nD.P.C. had not been properly constituted at the meeting held\non  7.8.1986 because of the absence of the Secretary to\t the\nGovt.  of  India,  Ministry of\tDefence\t and  therefore\t the\nproceedings  of\t the  said Committee  were  not\t valid.\t The\nTribunal  accordingly set aside the recommendations made  by\nthe  Committee\tand  directed that a  fresh  D.P.C.  may  be\nconvened  for reconsidering the agenda which was before\t the\nDepartmental Committee on 7.8.86.\n    The Union of India being dissatisfied with the aforesaid\norder  of  the Tribunal appealed by special leave,  to\tthis\nCourt.\n    Disposing of the appeal. the Court,\n    HELD:  It  is  well settled\t that  the  norms  regarding\nrecruitment and promotion of officers belonging to the Civil\nappropriate  Legislature or by rules made under the  proviso\nto  Article 309 of the Constitution of India or by means  of\nexecutive  instructions\t issued\t under\tArticle\t 73  of\t the\nConstitution  of India in the case of Civil  Services  under\nthe Union of India and under Art. 162 of the Constitution of\nIndia  in  the\tcase  of  Civil\t Services  under  the  State\nGovernments. [152B]\n    If\t there\t is  a\tconflict   between   the   executive\ninstructions and the rules made under the proviso to Article\n309,  the  rules  made\tunder the  proviso  lo\tArticle\t 309\nprevail,  and if there is a conflict between the rules\tmade\nunder  the  proviso to Article 309 and the law made  by\t the\nappropriate  Legislature  the law made\tby  the\t appropriate\nLegislature prevails. [152C]\n\t\t\t\t\t\t   PG NO 148\n    The Office Memorandum dated 30.12.1976 1s in the  nature\nof complete code with regard to the topics dealt with by it.\nUnless there is anything in the Rules made under the proviso\nto  Article  309  which is  repugnant  to  the\tinstructions\ncontained  in  the Office Memorandum the  Office  Memorandum\nwhich\tis  apparently\tissued\tunder  Article\t73  or\t the\nConstitution is entitled to be treated as valid and  binding\non all concerned. [153B-C]\n    This  Court\t does  not agree with the  decision  of\t the\nCentral Administrative Tribunal that in the instant case the\nproceedings  of\t the  Departmental  Promotion  Committee  on\n7.8.1986 have been vitiated solely on account of the  reason\nthat  the Secretary Ministry of Defence, one of its  members\nwas  not  present  at  the meeting  of\tthe  Committee.\t The\nproceedings  of the Departmental Promotion Committee at\t its\nmeeting held. on 7.8.1986 are not invalid on  this  account.\n[153E]\n    The\t decision  of the Tribunal set aside  and  the\tcase\nremitted to the Tribunal to dispose it of afresh. [153G]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3273 of 1988.
\n    From  the  Judgment and Order dated 25 11  1987  of\t the
\nCentral\t  Adminstrative\t  Tribunal  Jabalpur   in   Original
\nApplication No. 68 of 1986.\n<\/p>\n
    P. Parmeshwaran for the Appellants
\n    G.L.  Sanghi  Ashok\t Singh and  S.K\t Agnihotri  for\t the
\nRespondents.\n<\/p>\n
    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n    VENKATARAMIAH.  J. The short question which\t arises\t for
\nconsideration  in  this\t case is whether by  reason  of\t the
\nabsence\t of one of the members of a  Departmental  Promotion
\nCommittee  at a meeting convened for the purpose  of  making
\nrecommendations\t regarding  the\t promotion  of\tofficers  to
\nhigher\tposts in the services under the Government of  India
\nthe  recommendations  made  by\tthe  Departmental  Promotion
\nCommittee at the meeting would become invalid.
\n    The 1st respondent Somasundaram Viswanath was one of the
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t   PG NO 149
\nOfficers  of  the Indian Defence Accounts Service  who\tcame
\nwithin the zone of consideration for promotion to the  cadre
\nof  Controller\tof  Defence  Accounts.\tIn  order  to\tmake
\nappropriate recommendations in that behalf the\tDepartmental
\nPromotion Committee convened its meeting on 7.8.1986. One of
\nthe  members of the said Committee was the Secretary to\t the
\nGovernment of India, Ministry of Defence. Even though he had
\nbeen  informed\tabout the date and time of the\tmeeting,  he
\ncould  not be present at the meeting and in his absence\t the
\nremaining members of the Committee made recommendations. The
\n1st respondent was graded as ‘good’ and was not\t empanelled.
\nAggrieved  by  the decision of\tthe  Departmental  Promotion
\nCommittee the 1st respondent filed a petition being Original
\nApplication No. 68 of 1986 before the Central Administrative
\nTribunal,  Jabalpur  Bench questioning the validity  of\t the
\nrecommendations made by the Departmental Promotion Committee
\nand  praying  for  the issue of\t an  order  prohibiting\t the
\nappellants  from promoting his juniors to the higher  cadre.
\nIn  the course of his petition Respondent No. 1 raised\tmany
\npleas,\tbut  it is not necessary for us to refer to  all  of
\nthem  for the purpose of deciding the present case.  One  of
\nthe contentions urged by the 1st respondent, which  requires
\nto be considered is that the proceedings of the Departmental
\nPromotion  Committee at its meeting held on  7.8.1986  stood
\nvitiated  on account of the absence of the Secretary to\t the
\nGovernment of India, Ministry of Defence, who was one of the
\nmembers\t of  the Committee. In reply to the above  plea\t the
\nappellants  pleaded that the Secretary to the Government  of
\nIndia,\tMinistry of Defence was not present in\tthe  meeting
\ndue to the fact that he had to attend Parliament on that day
\nand that the proceedings were protected by the\tdepartmental
\ninstructions  issued by the Government of India with  regard
\nto  the\t procedure  to\tbe  followed  by  the\tDepartmental
\nPromotion  Committees. In reply thereto\t the 1st  respondent
\npleaded\t that the administrative instructions issued by\t the
\nGovernment of India could not override the rules made  under
\nthe proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India\t and
\nhad,  therefore, to be ignored. The  Central  Administrative
\nTribunal,  which heard the case, proceeded to set aside\t the
\nrecommendations made by the Departmental Promotion Committee
\non the main ground that the Committee had not been  properly
\nconstituted  at the meeting held on 7.8.1986 because of\t the
\nabsence\t of  the  Secretary  to\t the  Government  of  India,
\nMinistry  of Defence and, therefore, the proceedings of\t the
\nDepartmental   Promotion  Committee  were  not\tvalid.\t The
\nTribunal  directed  that  a  fresh  Departmental   Promotion
\nCommittee may be convened for reconsidering the agenda which
\nwas  before  the Departmental Promotion Committee on 7\t.  8
\nappellants have filed this appeal by Special Leave.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t   PG NO 150
\n    Promotions\tto the posts in Level-l and Level-II of\t the
\nSenior\tAdministrative Grade of the Indian Defence  Accounts
\nService\t are   governed\t   by the Indian  Defence   Accounts
\nService (Recruitment)\tRules, 1958 (as amended from time to
\ntime)\t (hereinafter  referred\t to  as\t      ‘the   Rules’)
\npromulgated  under  the\t proviso  to  Article  309  of\t the
\nConstitution  of India by the President of India. Under\t the
\nRules recruitments by promotion to the administrative  posts
\nin the Indian\tDefence Accounts Service have to be made  by
\nselection  on merit with due regard to the seniority on\t the
\nrecommendation\tof a duly\t  constituted  Departmental
\nPromotion  Committee.  In  Appendix II to    the  Rules\t the
\ncomposition of the Departmental Promotion Commit-\ttees
\nfor  recommending  eligible officers for  promotion  to\t the
\nvarious\t grades\t of  the  Service  has\tbeen  set  out.\t The
\nDepartmental Promotion\tCommittee for purposes of  promotion
\nto Level-l and Level-II of the\tSenior Administrative  Grade
\nshould consist of (i) the Chairman\tMember of the  Union
\nPublic Service Commission as Chairman, (ii) the\t  Secretary,
\nMinistry  of Defence, (iii) the Financial  Adviser  (Defence
\nServices),  and\t (iv)  the  Controller\tGeneral\t of  Defence
\nAccounts  as  members. The Rules do not contain the  details
\nregarding  the\tfunctions   of\tthe  Departmental  Promotion
\nCommittees, the procedure to be\t\tfollowed by them and
\nthe requisite quorum at the meetings of the\tDepartmental
\nPromotion Committees. These details had been laid\tdown
\nin  a number of official memoranda issued by the  Government
\nof  India  from\t time to time in the  form  of\tdepartmental
\ninstructions\tprior to 30th December, 1976. The Government
\nof India, however,\tissued an Office Memorandum  bearing
\nNo. 22011\/6\/76-Estt(D) on\t30.12.1976 consolidating all
\nthe   prior  administrative  instructions    governing\t the
\nfunctioning  of\t and  the procedure to be  followed  by\t the
\nDepartmental Promotion Committees which were required to  be
\nconstituted under the several rules of recruitment in  force
\nin  the various\t departments   of   the Government of  India.
\nThe preamble of the said  Office Memorandum reads thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t     “OFFICE MEMORANDUM
\n    Sub: Procedure for making promotions and functioning  of
\nthe Departmental Promotion Committee.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t undersigned is directed to state that the  Ministry
\nof  Home  Affairs  (now\t the  Department  of  Personnel\t and
\nAdministrative\tReforms)  have in the  past  issued  various
\nOffice Memoranda on the subject relating to the constitution
\nand functioning of the Departmental Promotion Committees and
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t  PG NO 151
\nthe  procedure to be followed in making promotions.  With  a
\nview to making such instructions, issued from time to  time,
\nhandy and available at one place, it has now been decided to
\nconsolidate   all   these  instructions.   Accordingly\t the
\nfollowing instructions are hereby issued on the subject\t for
\nthe  guidance  of all the  Ministries  \/Departments  in\t the
\nGovernment ..”\n<\/p>\n
    Paragraph VII of the said Office Memorandum, which deals
\nwith  “the  validity  of  the  proceedings  of\tDepartmental
\nPromotion Committees when one member is absent”, reads thus:\n<\/p>\n
    “The proceedings of the Departmental Promotion Committee
\nshall\tbe   legally  valid  and  can\tbe   operated\tupon
\nnotwithstanding the absence of any of its members other than
\nthe  Chairman provided that the member was duly invited\t but
\nhe  absented himself for one reason or the other  and  there
\nwas   no  deliberate  attempt  to  exclude  him\t  from\t the
\ndeliberation  of  the  DPC and\tprovided  further  that\t the
\nmajority  of  the  members  constituting  the\tDepartmental
\nPromotion Committee are present in the meeting.”\n<\/p>\n
    According  to  Paragraph VII of the\t Office\t Memorandum,
\nextracted above, it is clear that the absence of any of\t the
\nmembers\t of a Departmental Promotion Committee,\t other\tthan
\nthe  Chairman,\twould E not vitiate the proceedings  of\t the
\nDepartmental  Promotion Committee provided that\t the  member
\nabsent\thas  been duly invited but he absented\thimself\t for
\nsome  reason  and that there was no  deliberate\t attempt  to
\nexclude\t him  from  the\t deliberation  of  the\tDepartmental
\nPromotion  Committee  and that the majority of\tthe  members
\nconstituting   the  Departmental  Promotion  Committee\t are
\npresent in the meeting. In the instant case the only  person
\nwho was absent at the meeting of the Departmental  Promotion
\nCommittee  was\tthe Secretary to the  Government  of  India,
\nMinistry of Defence who could not attend the meeting because
\nhe had to be present in Parliament at the same time at which
\nthe  Departmental  Promotion  Committee had to\tmeet.  Th  e
\nChairman of the Departmental Promotion Committee was present
\nand  the  Chairman and the other members  who  were  present
\nconstituted  the  majority  of\tthe  Departmental  Promotion
\nCommittee. It was urged on behalf of the 1st respondent that
\nthe  Office Memorandum dated 30.12.1976 which contained\t the
\nvarious administrative instructions regarding the  procedure
\nfor making promotions and the functions of the\tDepartmental
\nPromotion   Committees\tbeing  merely  in  the\t nature\t  of
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t  PG NO 152
\nadministrative\tinstructions  could not override  the  Rules
\nwhich had been promulgated under the proviso to Article\t 309
\nof the Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n
    It is well settled that the norms regarding\t recruitment
\nand  promotion of officers belonging to the  Civil  Services
\ncan  be\t laid down either by a law made by  the\t appropriate
\nLegislature  or by rules made under the proviso\t to  Article
\n309  of the Constitution of India or by means  of  executive
\ninstructions issued under Article 73 of the Constitution  of
\nIndia in the case of Civil Services under the Union of India
\nand  under Article 162 of the Constitution of India  in\t the
\ncase of Civil Services under the State Governments. If there
\nis  a  conflict between the executive instructions  and\t the
\nrules  made  under  the\t proviso  to  Article  309  of\t the
\nConstitution  of  India,  the rules made  under\t proviso  to
\nArticle\t 309  of the Constitution of India prevail,  and  if
\nthere  is conflict between the rules made under the  proviso
\nto Article 309 of the Constitution of India and the law made
\nby   the  appropriate  Legislature  the\t law  made  by\t the
\nappropriate   Legislature   prevails.\tThe   question\t for
\nconsideration  is whether in the instant case there  is\t any
\nconflict  between the Rules and the Office Memorandum  dated
\n30.12.1976, referred to above. We have already noticed\tthat
\nthere  are  different  rules framed  under  the\t proviso  to
\nArticle\t 309  of  the  Constitution  of\t India\tfor   making
\nrecruitments  to services in the different  departments\t and
\nprovisions  have been made in them for the  constitution  of
\nDepartmental  Promotion\t Committees for purposes  of  making
\nrecommendations with regard to promotions of officers from a
\nlower  cadre to a higher cadre. But these rules are to\tsome
\nextent skeletal in character. No provision has been made  in
\nany  of them with regard to the procedure to be followed  by
\nthe  Departmental  Promotion Committees\t and  their  various
\nfunctions  and\talso  to  the  quorum  of  the\tDepartmental
\nPromotion Committees. These details which were necessary for
\nthe   proper  functioning  of  the  Departmental   Promotion
\nCommittees, as a matter of practice, were laid down prior to
\n30.12.1976 by the Government of India in the form of  Office
\nMemoranda issued from time to time and that on 30.12.1976  a
\nconsolidated   Office  Memorandum  was\t issued\t  containing
\ninstructions   with  regard  to\t such  details\twhich\twere
\napplicable  to all Departmental Promotion Committees of\t the
\nvarious\t Ministries\/Departments in the Government of  lndia.
\nsaid Office Memorandum deals with several topics, such as of
\nthe  Departmental Promotion Committees, frequency  at  which
\nDepartmental Promotion Committees should meet, matters to be
\nput  up\t for  consideration by\tthe  Departmental  Promotion
\nCommittees, the procedure to be observed by the Departmental
\nPromotion  Committees.\tthe procedure o be followed  in\t the
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t  PG NO 153
\ncase  of an officer under suspension whose conduct is  under
\ninvestigation  or against whom disciplinary proceedings\t are
\ninitiated  or  about  to  be  initiated,  validity  of\t the
\nproceedings of the Departmental Promotion Committees when  a
\nmember\tis absent, the need for consultation with the  Union
\nPublic Service Commission, the procedure to be followed when
\nthe   appointing   authority  does  not\t  agree\t  with\t the
\nrecommendations\t of  a\tDepartmental  Promotion\t  Committee,
\nimplementation\tof the recommendations of  the\tDepartmental
\nPromotion Committees, ad hoc promotions, period of  validity
\nof panels etc. etc. The Office Memorandum dated\t 30.12.1976,
\ntherefore,  is in the nature of a complete code with  regard
\nto the topics dealt with by it. Unless there is anything  in
\nthe  Rules  made  under the proviso to article\t309  of\t the
\nConstitution   of   India,  which  is\trepugnant   to\t the
\ninstructions contained in the Office Memorandum, the  Office
\nMemorandum  which is apparently issued under article  73  of
\nthe Constitution of India is entitle to be treated as  valid
\nand binding on all concerned. In the instant case the  Rules
\ndo  not contain any of these details except  indicating\t who
\nare   all  the\tpersons\t who  constitute  the\tDepartmental
\nPromotion   Committee.\tWe  do\tnot,  therefore,  find\t any
\nrepugnance  between the Rules and the Office Memorandum.  In
\nthe  circumstances we feel that the plea raised by  the\t 1st
\nrespondent  in is additional affidavit dated 13th May,\t1988
\n(page  132 of the Paper Book) that the Office Memorandum  is
\nineffective  cannot  be\t upheld. We do not  agree  with\t the
\ndecision of the Central Administrative Tribunal that in\t the
\ninstant\t case the proceedings of the Departmental  Promotion
\nCommittee on 7.8.1986 have been vitiated ” solely on account
\nof  this reason viz., that secretary, Ministry\tof  Defence,
\none  of\t its  members was not present”.\t We  hold  that\t the
\nproceedings,  of the Departmental Promotion Committee at  is
\nmeeting\t held  on  7.8.1986 are not invalid  for  the  above
\nreason.\n<\/p>\n
    We,\t therefore,  reverse  the  aforesaid  part  of\t the
\ndecision  of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has no doubt in\t the
\ncourse\tof its order referred to certain other matters,\t but
\nwe  feel that it proceeded to dispose of the case mainly  on
\nthe   ground  that  the\t proceedings  of  the\tDepartmental
\nPromotion Committee dated 7.8.1986 were\t vitiated on account
\nof the absence of the Secretary to the Government of  India,
\nMinistry of Defence at that meeting. We notice that adequate
\nattention  has\tnot been given to the other aspects  of\t the
\ncase  and  according  to  us  those  aspects  require  fresh
\nconsideration  at the ands of the Tribunal.  We,  therefore,
\nset   aside the decision of the Tribunal against which\tthis
\nappeal\tis filed and remand the case to it to dispose it  of
\nafresh in the light of the above observations. The  Tribunal
\nis requested to decide the case within three months from the
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t  PG NO 154
\ndate of receipt of a copy of this order.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t appeal\t is accordingly disposed  of.  There  shall,
\nhowever, be no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
Y. Lal\t\t\t\t     Appeal disposed of.\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Union Of India & Ors vs Somasundram Viswanath & Ors on 22 September, 1988 Equivalent citations: 1988 AIR 2255, 1988 SCR Supl. (3) 146 Author: E Venkataramiah Bench: Venkataramiah, E.S. (J) PETITIONER: UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: SOMASUNDRAM VISWANATH & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT22\/09\/1988 BENCH: VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J) BENCH: […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-38881","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nUnion Of India & Ors vs Somasundram Viswanath & Ors on 22 September, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-somasundram-viswanath-ors-on-22-september-1988\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Union Of India & Ors vs Somasundram Viswanath & Ors on 22 September, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-somasundram-viswanath-ors-on-22-september-1988\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1988-09-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-05-18T15:30:46+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-somasundram-viswanath-ors-on-22-september-1988#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-somasundram-viswanath-ors-on-22-september-1988\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Union Of India & Ors vs Somasundram Viswanath & Ors on 22 September, 1988\",\"datePublished\":\"1988-09-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-18T15:30:46+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-somasundram-viswanath-ors-on-22-september-1988\"},\"wordCount\":2301,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-somasundram-viswanath-ors-on-22-september-1988#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-somasundram-viswanath-ors-on-22-september-1988\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-somasundram-viswanath-ors-on-22-september-1988\",\"name\":\"Union Of India & Ors vs Somasundram Viswanath & Ors on 22 September, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1988-09-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-18T15:30:46+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-somasundram-viswanath-ors-on-22-september-1988#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-somasundram-viswanath-ors-on-22-september-1988\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-somasundram-viswanath-ors-on-22-september-1988#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Union Of India & Ors vs Somasundram Viswanath & Ors on 22 September, 1988\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Union Of India & Ors vs Somasundram Viswanath & Ors on 22 September, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-somasundram-viswanath-ors-on-22-september-1988","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Union Of India & Ors vs Somasundram Viswanath & Ors on 22 September, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-somasundram-viswanath-ors-on-22-september-1988","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1988-09-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-05-18T15:30:46+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-somasundram-viswanath-ors-on-22-september-1988#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-somasundram-viswanath-ors-on-22-september-1988"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Union Of India & Ors vs Somasundram Viswanath & Ors on 22 September, 1988","datePublished":"1988-09-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-18T15:30:46+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-somasundram-viswanath-ors-on-22-september-1988"},"wordCount":2301,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-somasundram-viswanath-ors-on-22-september-1988#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-somasundram-viswanath-ors-on-22-september-1988","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-somasundram-viswanath-ors-on-22-september-1988","name":"Union Of India & Ors vs Somasundram Viswanath & Ors on 22 September, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1988-09-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-18T15:30:46+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-somasundram-viswanath-ors-on-22-september-1988#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-somasundram-viswanath-ors-on-22-september-1988"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-somasundram-viswanath-ors-on-22-september-1988#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Union Of India & Ors vs Somasundram Viswanath & Ors on 22 September, 1988"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/38881","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=38881"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/38881\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=38881"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=38881"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=38881"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}