{"id":79262,"date":"1987-04-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1987-04-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-y-theclamma-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-15-april-1987"},"modified":"2016-12-27T23:07:49","modified_gmt":"2016-12-27T17:37:49","slug":"mrs-y-theclamma-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-15-april-1987","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-y-theclamma-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-15-april-1987","title":{"rendered":"Mrs. Y. Theclamma vs Union Of India & Ors on 15 April, 1987"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Mrs. Y. Theclamma vs Union Of India & Ors on 15 April, 1987<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1987 AIR 1210, \t\t 1987 SCR (2) 974<\/div>\n
Author: A Sen<\/div>\n
Bench: Sen, A.P. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nMRS. Y. THECLAMMA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nUNION OF INDIA & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT15\/04\/1987\n\nBENCH:\nSEN, A.P. (J)\nBENCH:\nSEN, A.P. (J)\nSINGH, K.N. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1987 AIR 1210\t\t  1987 SCR  (2) 974\n 1987 SCC  (2) 516\t  JT 1987 (2)\t165\n 1987 SCALE  (1)781\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1988 SC  37\t (16,18)\n RF\t    1988 SC 305\t (15)\n R\t    1990 SC1147\t (7)\n R\t    1991 SC2230\t (4)\n\n\nACT:\n    Delhi  School  Education Act,  1973:  S.  8(4)--Minority\neducational institution--Suspension of teacher--Order wheth-\ner  vitiated for want of approval by Director of  Education,\nSub-section whether ultra vires the Constitution.\n    Constitution of India, Article 30: Minority\t educational\ninstitution-Regulations can be made for ensuring fair proce-\ndure in matters of disciplinary action.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n    Sub-section\t (4) of s. 8 of the Delhi  School  Education\nAct, 1973 interdicts the management of a recognised  private\nschool from suspending any of its employees except with\t the\nprior  approval\t of the Director of Education.\tHowever,  in\ncases  of  gross misconduct the first proviso to  that\tsub-\nsection provides for suspension of the employee with immedi-\nate  effect, while the second proviso limits the  period  of\nsuch suspension to fifteen days, unless it has been communi-\ncated  to  the Director and approved of by  him\t before\t the\nexpiry of the said period.\n    The petitioner, a teacher in a recognised private school\nrun by a linguistic minority educational society, was placed\nunder suspension by the management by its order dated  April\n23,  1986 on charges of diversion of funds, pending  depart-\nmental\tinquiry\t and the fact intimated to the\tDirector  of\nEducation,  without formally seeking his approval  under  s.\n8(4)  of  the Act. She filed a suit assailing the  order  as\nviolative of s. 8(4) of the Act and also an application\t for\nthe  grant of a temporary injunction which was dismissed  by\nthe trial court following the decision of the High Court  in\nS.S.  Jain Sabha v. Union of India, [ILR (1976) 2  Del.\t 61]\ntaking the view that the educational institution having been\nestablished  and administered by a linguistic  minority,  it\nwas  protected\tunder Art. 30(1) of  the  Constitution,\t and\ntherefore,  the provisions of the Act and in particular,  s.\n8(4) were not applicable.\n    Her\t special  leave petition having\t been  dismissed  as\nwithdrawn by this Court, she filed the present writ petition\nin this Court and thereafter withdrew the suit.\n975\n    Relying upon the decision in Frank Anthony Public School\nEmployees Association v. Union of India,<\/a> [1986] 4 SCC 707 it\nwas contended for the petitioner that the impugned order  of\nsuspension being without prior approval of the Director,  as\nrequired  under\t s. 8(4) of the Act, was vitiated.  For\t the\nrespondents it was contended that the decision of the  Court\nin Frank Anthony Public School's case being contrary to\t the\ndecision  of the Constitution Bench in Lilly Kurian  v.\t Sr.\nLewina & Ors.,<\/a> [1979] 1 SCR 820 required reconsideration and\nthat s. 8(4) of the Act was violative of Article 30(1).\nDisposing of the writ petition, the Court,\n    HELD: 1. The exercise of the power of management of\t the\naided  schools\trun by the linguistic  minority\t educational\ninstitutions in Delhi to suspend a teacher is subject tO the\nrequirement  of prior approval of the Director of  Education\nunder sub-s. (4) of s. 8 of the Delhi School Education\tAct,\n1973. [979EF]\n    2.1\t While\tthe right of the  minorities,  religious  or\nlinguistic, to establish and administer educational institu-\ntions  of their choice cannot be interfered  with,  restric-\ntions  by  way of regulations for the  purpose\tof  ensuring\neducational standards and maintaining excellence thereof can\nvalidly be prescribed. [987B]\n    2.2\t Sub-section  (4) of s. 8 of the Act  requiring\t the\nprior approval of the Director of Education for the  suspen-\nsion  of a teacher was regulatory in character and did\tnot,\ntherefore,  offend  against  the fundamental  right  of\t the\nminorities under Art. 30(1) of the Constitution to  adminis-\nter  educational  institutions established by  them.  [986H-\n987A]\n    Frank  Anthony Public School Employees'  Association  v.\nUnion  of  India & Ors.,<\/a> [1986] 4 SCC 707; All\tSaints\tHigh\nSchool v. Government of Andhra Pradesh,<\/a> [1980] 2 SCC 478; In\nre. the Kerala Education Bill, 1957, [1959] SCR 995; Ahmeda-\nbad St. Xavier's College Society v. State of Gujarat, [1975]\n1  SCR 173 and Lilly Kurian v. Sr. Lewina & Ors.,<\/a>  [1979]  1\nSCR 820; applied.\n    State of Kerala v. Very Rev. Mother Provincial,<\/a> [1971] 1\nSCR 734 and D.A.V. College v. State of Punjab, [1971] Suppl.\nSCR 688, referred to.\n    3.1\t The decision in Frank Anthony Public School's\tcase\nholding that sub-s. (4) of s. 8 of the Act was applicable to\nthe unaided minority\n976\neducational institutions proceeds upon the view taken by the\nmajority  in  All Saints High School's case that  the  right\nguaranteed  to religious and linguistic minorities  by\tArt.\n30(1)  to establish and to administer  educational  institu-\ntions of their choice was subject to the regulatory power of\nthe State, which in its turn was based on several  decisions\nright  from In re. the Kerala Education Bill, 1957  down  to\nSt. Xavier's case including that in Lilly Kurian's case.  It\ncould  not,  therefore, be said to be in conflict  with\t the\ndecision  of the Constitution Bench in Lilly  Kurian's\tcase\nand required reconsideration. [983BC-986FG]\n    3.2\t The endeavour of the Court in all the\tabove  cases\nhas  been  to strike a balance\tbetween\t the  constitutional\nobligation  to\tprotect what is secured\t to  the  minorities\nunder  Art. 30(1) with the social necessity to\tprotect\t the\nmembers\t of the staff against arbitrariness  and  victimisa-\ntion.  The provision contained in sub-s.(4) of s. 8  of\t the\nAct is designed to afford some measure of protection to\t the\nteachers  of such institutions without interfering with\t the\nmanagements' right to take disciplinary action. [987E, D]\n    4.1 In a case like the present one where the  management\nof an educational institution governed by sub-s. (4) of s. 8\nof  the Act charged the petitioner with diversion  of  funds\nand  communicated the impugned order of\t suspension  pending\ndepartmental inquiry to the Director, a duty was cast on him\nto come to a decision whether such immediate suspension\t was\nnecessary by reason of the gross misconduct of the petition-\ner as required by sub-s. (5) ors. 8 of the Act. [987F, 988A]\n    4.2 Since there was no response from the Director within\nthe period of 15 days, as envisaged by the second proviso to\na. 8(4), the impugned order of suspension had lapsed. Howev-\ner, the management could yet move the Director for his prior\napproval under sub-s. (4) of s. 8 of the Act, who would then\ndeal  with such an application, if made, in accordance\twith\nthe principle laid down in the Frank Anthony Public School's\ncase. [988BC]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 1232 of 1986.
\n(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).
\nC.S. Vaidayanathan and S.R. Sethia for the Petitioner.
\nA. Subba Rao for the Respondents.\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n977<\/span>
\n    SEN, J. The short point involved in this petition  under
\nArt.  32 of the Constitution is whether linguistic  minority
\neducational  institutions like the Andhra Education  Society
\nare  governed  by  sub-s. (4) of s. 8 of  the  Delhi  School
\nEducation  Act,\t 1973.\tThe petitioner\tSmt.  Y.  Theclamma,
\nVice-Principal,\t Andhra Education Society Secondary  School,
\nPrasad Nagar, New Delhi challenges the legality of an  order
\npassed\tby  the managing committee of the  Andhra  Education
\nSociety,  New Delhi dated April 23, 1986 placing  her  under
\nsuspension pending a departmental inquiry against her.
\n    The facts lie within a narrow compass. The Andhra Educa-
\ntion Society is a society formed under the Societies  Regis-
\ntration Act, 1860 with a view to imparting education to\t the
\nchildren  belonging  to the Andhra community and  others  in
\nDelhi.\tIt runs as many as four schools–a senior  secondary
\nschool\tat Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Marg, a secondary school  at
\nPrasad\tNagar, a middle school at Janak Puri and another  at
\nEast of Kailash. The first three of these are recognised  by
\nthe  Director  of Education, Delhi  Administration  and\t are
\naided by the Government to the extent of 95%. The petitioner
\nis  thus employed in a government aided school. By  the\t im-
\npugned order dated April 23. 1986, the management instituted
\na  departmental\t inquiry against the petitioner\t on  certain
\ncharges\t and placed her under suspension in exercise  of  r.
\n115  of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973\tpending\t the
\ninquiry.  A  copy of the impugned order\t of  suspension\t was
\nforwarded  on the same day to the Director of Education.  On
\nthe  next  day i.e. on April 24, 1986,\tthe  management\t ad-
\ndressed\t a letter to Deputy Director of Education,  District
\nWest, New Delhi formally intimating that the petitioner\t had
\nbeen placed under suspension pending inquiry on a charge  of
\nmisconduct  as\tspecified for the reasons mentioned  in\t the
\nstatements of charges and of allegations forwarded. On\tthat
\nday, the petitioner brought a suit for perpetual  injunction
\nagainst\t the management being Civil Suit No. 213\/86  in\t the
\nCourt of the Subordinate Judge, First Class, Delhi. She also
\nmade an application for grant of temporary injunction  under
\nOrder  XXXIX,  r. 1 of the Civil Procedure  Code,  1908\t for
\nrestraining the managing committee from proceeding with\t the
\ndepartmental inquiry. The temporary injunction was sought on
\nthe ground that the managing committee was not duly  consti-
\ntuted  and  besides, the impugned order\t of  suspension\t was
\nviolative of sub-s. (4) of s. 8 of the Act. On the same day.
\nthe learned Subordinate Judge passed an order for  maintain-
\ning the status quo. However, the management entered  appear-
\nance  and applied for vacating the injunction on the  ground
\n‘that the petitioner had already been suspended on April 23,
\n1986. It also pleaded that the school was being\t established
\nand
\n978<\/span>
\nadministered  by the Andhra Education Society which being  a
\nlinguistic  minority educational institution  was  protected
\nunder  Art.  30(1)  of the Constitution\t and  therefore\t the
\nprovisions of the Act and in particular of sub-s. (4) of  s.
\n8 were not applicable. The learned Subordinate Judge by\t his
\norder  dated August 20, 1986 following the decision  of\t the
\nDelhi High Court in S.S. Jain Sabha (of Rawalpindi) Delhi v.
\nUnion  of India & Ors., ILR (1976) 2 Del. 61 held  that\t the
\nAndhra Education Society was protected under Art. 30(1)\t and
\nwas therefore not governed by sub-s. (4) of s. 8 of the\t Act
\nand  accordingly  dismissed  the application  for  grant  of
\ntemporary injunction. Instead of moving the High Court,\t the
\npetitioner straightaway filed a Special Leave Petition under
\nArt.  136 of the Constitution in this Court which was  obvi-
\nously not maintainable. On September 10, 1986 learned  coun-
\nsel  for  the petitioner finding that it  was  difficult  to
\nsupport\t the petition for grant of special leave, sought  an
\nadjournment to take further instructions, and the matter was
\naccordingly  adjourned to September 22, 1986. In  the  mean-
\nwhile,\tthe petitioner moved this petition under Art. 32  of
\nthe  Constitution and thereafter withdrew the suit.  On\t the
\nadjourned  date, the learned counsel also withdrew the\tSpe-
\ncial Leave Petition. The Special Leave Petition was  accord-
\ningly dismissed as withdrawn.\n<\/p>\n
    Ordinarily, the Court would have directed the petitioner
\nto  avail  of her alternative remedy under Art. 226  of\t the
\nConstitution  before the High Court but we were\t constrained
\nto  issue notice inasmuch as the High Court had in the\tyear
\n1979 by its judgment in Andhra Education Society v. Union of
\nIndia  &  Anr., followed its earlier decision in  S.S.\tJain
\nSabha’s case, (supra), and allowed a batch of Writ Petitions
\nfiled  by the Andhra Education Society and other  linguistic
\nminority  educational institutions holding that in  view  of
\nthe  protection\t of  Art. 30(1)\t these\tlinguistic  minority
\neducational  institutions  were not governed by\t ss.  3,  5,
\nsub-s.\t(4) of s. 8, ss. 16 and 25 of the Act and the  rele-
\nvant rules framed thereunder and therefore no prior approval
\nof the Director of Education was necessary before passing an
\norder of suspension against a teacher pending a departmental
\ninquiry. We were also constrained to entertain the  petition
\nbecause\t a similar question was raised by the Frank  Anthony
\nPublic\tSchool\tEmployees’ Association by a  petition  under
\nArt.  32  of the Constitution. Since then the Court  has  in
\nFrank Anthony Public School Employees’ Association v.  Union
\nof  India & Ors.,<\/a> [1986] 4 SCC 707 struck down s. 12 of\t the
\nAct as being violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution  inso-
\nlaf  as\t it  excludes the teachers and\tother  employees  of
\nunaided\t minority schools from the beneficial provisions  of
\nss. 8 to 11 [except s. 8 (2)]i.e. except to the
\n979<\/span>
\nextent that it makes s. 8(2) inapplicable to unaided minori-
\nty educational institutions.\n<\/p>\n
    The Court following the long line of decisions  starting
\nfrom In re. the Kerala Education Bill, 1957, [1959] SCR\t 995
\ndown  to  All  Saints High School v.  Government  of  Andhra
\nPradesh.<\/a>  [1980]  2 SCC 478 held. that the  provisions\tcon-
\ntained in Chapter IV of the Act (except s. 8(2)) were  regu-
\nlatory measures and did not offend against Art. 30(1) of the
\nConstitution,  enacted with the purpose of  ensuring  proper
\nconditions of service of the teachers and other employees of
\nunaided minority educational institutions and for securing a
\nfair  procedure\t in  the matter of  disciplinary  action  as
\nagainst them. These provisions, according to the Court, were
\npermissible  restrictions  and were intended  and  meant  to
\nprevent maladministration. The view proceeds upon the  basis
\nthat  the right to administer cannot obviously\tinclude\t the
\nright  to maladminister. A regulation which is\tdesigned  to
\nprevent\t maladministration  of\tan  educational\t institution
\ncannot be said to infringe Art. 30(1). The Court accordingly
\ngranted\t a declaration to the effect that s. 12 of  the\t Act
\nwas  void and unconstitutional except to the extent that  it
\nmakes  s. 8(2) inapplicable to unaided minority\t educational
\ninstitutions, and directed the Union of India, Delhi  Admin-
\nistration  and\tits officers to enforce\t the  provisions  of
\nChapter IV [except s. 8(2)] against the Frank Anthony Public
\nSchool, an unaided minority school. It has further  directed
\nthe  management\t of  the school not to give  effect  to\t the
\nimpugned orders of suspension passed against the members  of
\nthe staff. Such being the law declared by the Court in Frank
\nAnthony Public School’s case with regard to unaided minority
\neducational institutions, it stands to reason that the aided
\nminority  schools  run by the Andhra Education\tSociety\t and
\nother linguistic minority educational institutions in  Delhi
\nwill  also  be\tgoverned by the\t provisions  of\t Chapter  IV
\n[except s. 8(2)], that is to say, the exercise of the  power
\nof the management of such schools to suspend a teacher would
\nnecessarily be subject to the requirement of prior  approval
\nof the Director of Education under sub-s. (4) of s. 8 of the
\nAct.\n<\/p>\n
    In\tsupport\t of the petition Sri  Vaidyanathan,  learned
\ncounsel\t for  the  petitioner naturally\t contends  that\t the
\nmatter is concluded by the recent decision of this Court  in
\nFrank Anthony Public School’s case and according to the view
\nexpressed  by the Court in that case the impugned  order  of
\nsuspension passed by the management being without the  prior
\napproval  of the Director as required by sub-s. (4) of s.  8
\nof  the Act was vitiated. On the other hand Sri\t Subba\tRao,
\nlearned\t counsel appearing for respondents Nos. 3, 4  and  5
\nsubmits that the
\n980<\/span>
\nview expressed by this Court in the recent decision in Frank
\nAnthony Public School’s case based upon the earlier decision
\nin  All Saints High School’s case runs counter to the  deci-
\nsion of the Constitution Bench in Lilly Kurian v. Sr. Lewina
\n& Ors.,<\/a> [1979] 1 SCR 820 and therefore requires reconsidera-
\ntion.  Alternatively, he contends that the Court  failed  to
\nappreciate that sub-s. (4) of s. 8 of the Act requiring\t the
\nprior  approval\t of  the Director for the  suspension  of  a
\nteacher\t was a flagrant encroachment upon the right  of\t the
\nminorities under Art. 30(1) of the Constitution to  adminis-
\nter  educational  institutions established by  them.  It  is
\nargued\tthat if no prior approval of the Director is  needed
\nunder  s.  8(2) for the dismissal, removal or  reduction  in
\nrank  of  a teacher as held by this Court in  Frank  Anthony
\nPublic School’s case, there is no reason why the exercise of
\npower  of suspension being an integral part of the power  to
\ntake  disciplinary action could not be made subject  to\t any
\nsuch  restriction  as imposed by sub-s. (4) of s. 8  of\t the
\nAct.\n<\/p>\n
    In\torder  to appreciate the rival\tcontentions,  it  is
\nnecessary to set out the relevant provisions. Sub-s. (2)  of
\ns.  8 interdicts that subject to any rule that may be  made,
\nno  employee  of a recognised private school shall  be\tdis-
\nmissed, removed or reduced in rank, nor shall his service be
\notherwise  terminated except with the prior approval of\t the
\nDirector. S. 8(3) confers upon such an employee the right of
\nan  appeal to the Tribunal constituted under s.\t 11  against
\nhis  dismissal,\t removal or reduction in  rank.\t Sub-s.\t (4)
\nrelates to the power of suspension and it is in these terms:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “(4). Where the managing committee of a recog-
\n\t      nised private school intends to suspend any of
\n\t      its employees, such intention shall be  commu-
\n\t      nicated to the Director and no such suspension
\n\t      shall  be made except with the prior  approval
\n\t      of the Director:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t       Provided that the managing  committee
\n\t      may suspend an employee with immediate  effect
\n\t      and without the prior approval of the Director
\n\t      if it is satisfied that such immediate suspen-
\n\t      sion  is\tnecessary  by reason  of  the  gross
\n\t      misconduct, within the meaning of the Code  of
\n\t      Conduct  prescribed  under section 9,  of\t the
\n\t      employee:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t       Provided further that no such immedi-
\n\t      ate suspension shall remain in force for\tmore
\n\t      than a period of fifteen days from the date of
\n\t      suspension unless it has been communi-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      981<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      cated  to\t the Director and  approved  by\t him
\n\t      before the expiry of the said period.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Sub-s.(5) of s. 8 provides that where intention to  suspend,
\nor the immediate suspension of\tan employee is\tcommunicated
\nto  the Director, he may, if he is satisfied that there\t are
\nadequate and reasonable grounds for such suspension,  accord
\nhis approval to such suspension.\n<\/p>\n
    In Frank Anthony Public School’s case, Chinnappa  Reddy,
\nJ. speaking for himself and G.L. Oza, J. while repelling the
\ncontention  that  sub-s. (4) of s. 8 of the Act was  an\t en-
\ncroachment  upon  the fundamental right\t of  the  minorities
\nenshrined in Art. 30(1) to administer the educational insti-
\ntutions\t established  by  them inasmuch as  it\tconferred  a
\nblanket power on the Director to grant or withhold his prior
\napproval where the management intended to place an  employee
\nunder  suspension pending a departmental  inquiry,  observed
\nthat  the  question  was directly covered  by  the  majority
\ndecision  in All Saints High School’s case and that, in\t his
\nview,  the provision was eminently reasonable and  just\t de-
\nsigned\tto afford some measure of protection to the  employ-
\nees, without interfering with the management’s right to take
\ndisciplinary action. He then stated:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Section 8(4) would be inapplicable to minori-
\n\t      ty  institutions if it had  conferred  blanket
\n\t      power  on\t the Director to grant\tor  withhold
\n\t      prior  approval in every case where a  manage-
\n\t      ment  proposed to suspend an employee  but  we
\n\t      see that it is not so. The management has\t the
\n\t      right  to\t order immediate  suspension  of  an
\n\t      employee\tin case of gross misconduct  but  in
\n\t      order  to\t prevent an abuse of  power  by\t the
\n\t      management  a  safeguard is  provided  to\t the
\n\t      employee\tthat  approval\tshould\tbe  obtained
\n\t      within 15 days. The Director is also bound  to
\n\t      accord his approval if there are adequate\t and
\n\t      reasonable  grounds for such  suspension.\t The
\n\t      provision\t appears to be eminently  reasonable
\n\t      and  sound and the answer to the\tquestion  in
\n\t      regard  to this provision is directly  covered
\n\t      by  the  decision in All Saints  High  School,
\n\t      where Chandrachud, CJ. and Kailasam, J. upheld
\n\t      Section 3(3)(a) of the Act impugned  therein.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (Emphasis supplied)
\nIt is not necessary to go through all the cases relied\tupon
\nby the
\n982<\/span>
\nCourt  in  Frank Anthony Public School’s case for  the\tview
\ntaken that the provisions of Chapter IV of the Act were of a
\nregulatory  nature and therefore did not have the effect  of
\nabridging the fundamental right guaranteed to the minorities
\nunder Art. 30(1). It is enough to say that although there is
\nno  reference  in the judgment to Lilly Kurian’s  case,\t the
\nobservations  made by the Court with regard to the  applica-
\nbility of sub-s.(4) of s. 8 of the Act which relates to\t the
\nexercise of the power of suspension by the management,\tfall
\nin  line  with\tthe view expressed by the  majority  in\t All
\nSaints High School’s case where such power was held to be on
\nconsideration of all the decisions starting from In re.\t the
\nKerala\tEducation Bill, 1957, permissible restriction  being
\nregulatory  in\tcharacter.  Presumably the  Court  in  Frank
\nAnthony Public School’s case felt that it was not  necessary
\nto refer to Lilly Kurian’s case as the extent of the regula-
\ntory power of the State had been dealt with by the Court  In
\nre.  the Kerala Education Bill, 1957 and reaffirmed  in\t the
\nsubsequent  decisions,\tincluding that in  All\tSaints\tHigh
\nSchool’s  case. In Lilly Kurian’s case, one of us (Sen,\t J.)
\nspeaking for a Constitution Bench had occasion to observe:
\n.lm
\n“Protection of the minorities is an article of faith in\t the
\nConstitution  of India. The right to the  administration  of
\ninstitutions of minority’s choice enshrined in Article 30(1)
\nmeans  ‘management of the affairs’ of the institution.\tThis
\nright  is, however, subject to the regulatory power  of\t the
\nState.\tArticle 30(1) is not a charter\tfor  mal-administra-
\ntion;  however regulation, so that the right  to  administer
\nmay be better exercised for the benefit of the\tinstitution,
\nis permissible;”\n<\/p>\n
(Emphasis supplied)
\nIn  that case, the question was whether the conferment of  a
\nright  of  appeal to an external authority  like  the  Vice-
\nChancellor of the University under Ordinance 33(4) framed by
\nthe Syndicate of the University of Kerala under s. 19(j)  of
\nthe Kerala University Act, 1957 against any order passed  by
\nthe  management\t of a minority\teducational  institution  in
\nrespect\t of  penalties including that of suspension  was  an
\nabridgement of the right of administration conferred on\t the
\nminorities  under Art. 30(1). The question was\tanswered  in
\nthe  affirmative and it was held that the conferral  of\t the
\npower of appeal to the ViceChancellor under Ordinance  33(4)
\nwas  not  only a grave encroachment  on\t such  institution’s
\nright to enforce and ensure discipline in its administrative
\naffairs\t but  it was uncanalised and unguided in  the  sense
\nthat  no  restrictions were placed on the  exercise  of\t the
\npower. It was further said that in the absence of any guide-
\nlines it could not be held
\n983<\/span>
\nthat the power entrusted to the Vice-Chancellor under  Ordi-
\nnance 33(4) was merely a check on maladministration.
\n    In\tFrank Anthony Public School’s case, the\t Court\theld
\nthat  subss. (1), (3) and (4) of s. 8, and ss. 9, 10 and  11
\nof the Act do not encroach upon the right of  administration
\nconferred  on the minorities under Art. 30(1) to  administer
\neducational institutions of their choice, but that s.  8(2),
\nin  view  of the authorities referred to, must\tbe  held  to
\ninterfere  with\t such right and\t therefore  inapplicable  to
\nminority  institutions. It would therefore appear  that\t the
\ndecision in Frank Anthony Public School’s case proceeds upon
\nthe view that the right guaranteed to religious and linguis-
\ntic  minorities\t by  Art. 30(1) which is  two-fold  i.e.  to
\nestablish  and\tto administer  educational  institutions  of
\ntheir  choice,\tis subject to the regulatory  power  of\t the
\nState.\tThe  Court has referred to the\tthree  decisions  in
\nAhmedabad St. Xavier’s College Society v. State of  Gujarat,
\n[1975]\t1 SCR 173; State of Kerala v. Very Rev. Mother\tPro-<\/a>
\nvincial,  [1971]  1 SCR 734 and All Saints  High  School  v.
\nGovt. of A.P. (supra) in coming to the conclusion that s. 12
\nof  the Act insofar as it made inapplicable  the  beneficent
\nprovisions of Chapter IV to unaided minority institution was
\ndiscriminatory and offended against Art. 14, i.e. except  to
\nthe extent that it made s. 8(2) inapplicable to such  insti-
\ntutions.  The  view taken in Frank Anthony  Public  School’s
\ncase  is in consonance with the decision of the majority  in
\nAll Saints High School’s case. In that case, the applicabil-
\nity  of\t several  sections of the  A.P.\t Recognised  Private
\nEducational Institutions (Control) Act, 1975 was  questioned
\nas  being  violative of Art. 30(1). Chandrachud,  CJ.  while
\ndelivering the majority judgment held after referring to all
\nthe earlier decisions, that it must be regarded as  wellset-
\ntled  especially  after the 9-Judge Bench  decision  in\t St.
\nXavier’s  case and the subsequent decision in  Lilly  Kurian
\nthat  the State was competent to enact\tregulatory  measures
\nfor the purpose of ensuring educational standards and  main-
\ntaining\t the excellence thereof and such  regulations  which
\nwere permissible did not impinge upon the minorities’ funda-
\nmental right to administer educational institutions of their
\nchoice under Art. 30(1). The reason for this conclusion\t can
\nbest be stated in the words of Chandrachud, CJ.:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “These decisions show that while the right  of
\n\t      the  religious  and linguistic  minorities  to
\n\t      establish and administer educational  institu-
\n\t      tions  of\t their choice cannot  be  interfered
\n\t      with,  restrictions by way of regulations\t for
\n\t      the purpose of ensuring educational  standards
\n\t      and maintaining the excellence thereof can  be
\n\t      validly prescribed. For maintaining educa-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      984<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      tional  standards\t of an\tinstitution,  it  is
\n\t      necessary\t to ensure. that it  is\t competently
\n\t      staffed. Conditions of service which prescribe
\n\t      minimum  qualifications for the  staff,  their
\n\t      pay  scales, their entitlement to other  bene-
\n\t      fits  of service and the laying down of  safe-
\n\t      guards which must be observed before they\t are
\n\t      removed  or  dismissed from service  or  their
\n\t      services\tare terminated are  all\t permissible
\n\t      measures of a regulatory character.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Chandrachud,  CJ. and Fazal Ali, J. held that ss.  3(1)\t and
\n3(2) which made the prior approval of the competent authori-
\nty a prerequisite for the dismissal, removal or reduction in
\nrank  of a teacher, conferred on the competent authority  an
\nappellate  power of great magnitude and therefore  ss.\t3(1)
\nand  3(2) read together were, in their opinion,\t unconstitu-
\ntional\tinsofar\t as they were made  applicable\tto  minority
\ninstitutions  inasmuch as they were found to interfere\tsub-
\nstantially  with their right to administer  institutions  of
\ntheir  choice.\tIn coming to that  conclusion,\tthe  learned
\nChief  Justice relied upon the decisions in State of  Kerala
\nv.  Very  Rev. Mother Provincial,<\/a> [1971] 1 SCR\t734;  D.A.V.
\nCollege v. State of Punjab, [1971] Suppl. SCR 688 and  Lilly
\nKurian\tand accordingly agreed with Fazal Ali, J.  that\t ss.
\n3(1)  and 3(2) of the impugned Act could not be\t applied  to
\nminority  institutions since to do so would  offend  against
\nArt.  30(1).  We  may extract the relevant  portion  of\t the
\njudgment:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Any  doubt  as to the width of  the  area  in
\n\t      which Section 3(1) operates and is intended to
\n\t      operate, is removed by.the provision contained
\n\t      in Section 3(2), by virtue of which the compe-
\n\t      tent  authority “shall” approve the  proposal,
\n\t      “if  it is satisfied that there  are  adequate
\n\t      and reasonable grounds” for the proposal. This
\n\t      provision,  under the guise of conferring\t the
\n\t      power of approval, confers upon the  competent
\n\t      authority\t an appellate power of great  magni-
\n\t      tude. The competent authority is made by\tthat
\n\t      provision\t the sole judge of the propriety  of
\n\t      the  proposed order since it is for  that\t au-
\n\t      thority  to see whether there  are  reasonable
\n\t      grounds  for  the proposal. The  authority  is
\n\t      indeed  made a judge both of facts and law  by
\n\t      the conferment upon it of a power to test\t the
\n\t      validity of the proposal on the vastly subjec-
\n\t      tive  touchstone of adequacy  and\t reasonable-
\n\t      ness.  Section 3(2), in my opinion, leaves  no
\n\t      scope  for  reading  down\t the  provisions  of
\n\t      Section  3(1). The two  sub-sections  together
\n\t      confer  upon the competent authority,  in\t the
\n\t      absence of proper rules, a
\n\t      985<\/span>
\n\t      wide and untrammelled discretion to  interfere
\n\t      with  the\t proposed order,  whenever,  in\t its
\n\t      opinion,\tthe order is based on grounds  which
\n\t      do not appear to it either adequate or reason-
\n\t      able.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      “The form in which Section 3(2) is couched  is
\n\t      apt to mislead by creating an impression\tthat
\n\t      its  real object is to cast an  obligation  on
\n\t      the competent authority to approve a  proposal
\n\t      under  certain conditions. Though the  section
\n\t      provides that the competent authority  “shall”
\n\t      approve the proposed order if it is  satisfied
\n\t      that  it is based on adequate  and  reasonable
\n\t      grounds,\tits plain and necessary\t implication
\n\t      is  that\tit shall not  approve  the  proposal
\n\t      unless  it is so satisfied. The conferment  of
\n\t      such  a  power on an  outside  authority,\t the
\n\t      exercise of which is made to depend on  purely
\n\t      subjective  considerations arising out of\t the
\n\t      twin  formula of adequacy and  reasonableness,
\n\t      cannot  but constitute an infringement of\t the
\n\t      right guaranteed by Article 30(1).”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
It  is also necessary to mention that all the  three  Judges
\n(Chandrachud, CJ. Fazal Ali & Kailasam, JJ.) agreed that  s.
\n4  of the Act which provided for an appeal, and s.  5  which
\nwas consequential to s. 4, were invalid as violative of Art.
\n30(1).\n<\/p>\n
    However,  there  was a difference of opinion as  to\t the
\napplicability of ss. 3(3)(a), 3(3)(b), 6 and 7. We need only
\nnotice ss. 3(3)(a) and 3(3)(b) which pertained to the  power
\nof suspension. S. 3(3)(a) provided that no teacher  employed
\nin any private educational institution shall be placed under
\nsuspension except when an inquiry into the gross  misconduct
\nof such teacher is contemplated. S. 3(3)(b) provided that no
\nsuch suspension shall remain in force for more than a period
\nof  two months and if the inquiry was not  completed  within
\nthat  period, the teacher shall be deemed to be\t reinstated.
\nProviso\t thereto  however conferred power on  the  competent
\nauthority, for reasons to be recorded in writing, to  extend
\nthe  period for a further period not exceeding\ttwo  months.
\nChandrachud, CJ. found it difficult to agree with Fazal Ali,
\nJ.  that  these\t provisions were violative  of\tArt.  30(1),
\nthereby\t agreeing  with Kailasam, J. that they\twere  indeed
\nregulatory.  S. 3(3)(a), in his own words, contained but  an
\nelementary  guarantee of freedom from arbitrariness  to\t the
\nteachers. The provision was regulatory in character since it
\nneither\t denied\t to  the management  the  right\t to  proceed
\nagainst an erring teacher nor indeed did it place an  unrea-
\nson-\n<\/p>\n
986<\/span><\/p>\n
able  restraint on its power to do so. It assumed the  right
\nof  the management to suspend a teacher but  regulated\tthat
\nright  by directing that a teacher should not  be  suspended
\nfor more than a period of two months unless the inquiry\t was
\nin respect of a charge of gross misconduct. In dealing\twith
\ns. 3(3)(a), the learned Chief Justice observed:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Fortunately,  suspension of teachers  is\t not
\n\t      the  order of the day, for which reason  I  do
\n\t      not  think that these restraints which bear  a
\n\t      reasonable nexus with the attainment of educa-
\n\t      tional  excellence  can be  considered  to  be
\n\t      violative of the right given by Art. 30(1).”
\n\t      He then stated:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      “The  limitation of the period  of  suspension
\n\t      initially\t to two months, which can in  appro-
\n\t      priate  cases  be\t extended  by  another\t two
\n\t      months, partakes of the same character as\t the
\n\t      provision\t contained  in s.  3(3)(a).  In\t the
\n\t      generality   of  cases,  a  domestic   inquiry
\n\t      against a teacher ought to be completed within
\n\t      a period of two months or say, within  another
\n\t      two months. A provision founded so patently on
\n\t      plain  reason is difficult to construe  as  an
\n\t      invasion of the fight to administer an  insti-
\n\t      tution, unless that right carried with it\t the
\n\t      right to maladminister.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
He accordingly agreed with Kailasam, J. that ss. 3(3)(a) and
\n3(3)(b)\t which\tput  restraints on the\tarbitrary  power  of
\nsuspension of teachers were regulatory in character and\t did
\nnot offend against the fundamental right of minorities under
\nArt. 30(1).\n<\/p>\n
    It would be seen that the decision of the Court in Frank
\nAnthony Public School’s case with regard to the applicabili-
\nty of sub-s. (4) of s. 8 of the Act to the unaided  minority
\neducational  institutions is based on the view taken by\t the
\nmajority  in  All Saints High School’s case  which,  on\t its
\nturn,  was based on several decisions right from In re.\t the
\nKerala\tEducation Bill, 1957 down to St.  Xavier,  including
\nthat  in Lilly Kurian. It is therefore difficult to  sustain
\nthe argument of learned counsel for the respondents that the
\ndecision in Frank Anthony Public School’s case holding\tthat
\nsub-s. (4) of s. 8 of the Act was applicable to such  insti-
\ntutions\t was in conflict with the decision of the  Constitu-
\ntion  Bench  in Lilly Kurian’s case and\t therefore  required
\nreconsideration.  The contention of learned counsel for\t the
\nrespondents that sub-s. (4) of s. 8 of the Act requiting the
\nprior approval of the Director for the suspen-\n<\/p>\n
987<\/span><\/p>\n
sion of a teacher was a flagrant encroachment upon the right
\nof  the minorities under Art. 30(1) of the  Constitution  to
\nadminister  educational institutions established by them  is
\nanswered  in all the earlier decisions of this\tCourt  right
\nfrom In re. the Kerala Education Bill, 1957 down to that  in
\nAll Saints High School’s case which have been referred to by
\nthe  Court  in\tFrank Anthony Public  School’s\tcase.  These
\ndecisions unequivocally lay down that while the right of the
\nminorities, religious or linguistic, to establish and admin-
\nister  educational  institutions of their choice  cannot  be
\ninterfered with, restrictions by way of regulations for\t the
\npurpose\t of ensuring educational standards  and\t maintaining
\nexcellence thereof can validly be prescribed.
\n    It cannot be doubted that although disciplinary  control
\nover  the teachers of a minority educational institution  is
\nwith  the management, regulations can be made  for  ensuring
\nproper\tconditions of service for the teachers and also\t for
\nensuring  a  fair procedure in the  matter  of\tdisciplinary
\naction.\t As  the  Court laid down in  Frank  Anthony  Public
\nSchool’s case, the provision contained in sub-s. (4) of s. 8
\nof the Act is designed to afford some measure of  protection
\nto  the\t teachers of such institutions\twithout\t interfering
\nwith  the  managements’ right to take  disciplinary  action.
\nAlthough the Court in that case had no occasion to deal with
\nthe different ramifications arising out of sub-s. (4) of  s.
\n8  of  the Act, it struck a note of caution that in  a\tcase
\nwhere the management charged the employee with gross miscon-
\nduct,  the Director is bound to accord his approval  to\t the
\nsuspension. It would be seen that the endeavour of the Court
\nin  all the cases has been to strike a balance\tbetween\t the
\nconstitutional obligation to protect what is secured to\t the
\nminorities  under  Art. 30(1) with the social  necessity  to
\nprotect\t the members of the staff against arbitrariness\t and
\nvictimisation.\n<\/p>\n
    One should have thought that in a case like the  present
\nwhere  the management charged the petitioner with  diversion
\nof  funds and communicated the impugned order of  suspension
\npending departmental inquiry to the Director, there would be
\nsome  response\tfrom him. The management  did  not  formally
\napply for his prior approval in terms of sub-s. (4) of s.  8
\nof the Act in view of the declaration by the High Court that
\nit  being a linguistic minority educational institution,  it
\nwas protected under Art. 30(1) and no prior approval of\t the
\nDirector was required. Nevertheless, it took the  precaution
\nof  communicating  the impugned order of suspension  to\t the
\nDirector.  Presumably, the Director refrained  from  passing
\nany  order according or refusing approval having  regard  to
\nthe judgment of the High Court. In view of the recent  deci-
\nsion in Frank Anthony Public School’s case, it must be
\n988<\/span>
\nheld that the institution was governed by sub-s, (4) of s. 8
\nof the Act and therefore there was a duty cast on the Direc-
\ntor to come to a decision whether such immediate  suspension
\nwas  necessary\tby  reason of the gross\t misconduct  of\t the
\npetitioner as required by sub=s (5) of s.8. We refrain\tfrom
\nexpressing  any opinion as to the seriousness  otherwise  of
\nthe  charge as that is a matter to be enquired into  by\t de-
\npartmental  proceeding. The fact however remains that  there
\nwas  no response from the Director within the period  of  15
\ndays  as  envisaged by the second proviso to s. 8(4).  As  a
\nresult of this, the impugned order of suspension has  lapsed
\nand  it is so declared. Although the impugned order of\tsus-
\npension has lapsed, the management may yet move the Director
\nfor his prior approval under sub-s (4) of s. 8 of the  Delhi
\nSchool Education Act, 1973, and the Director shall deal with
\nsuch application, if made, in accordance with the principles
\nlaid down in Frank Anthony Public School’s case,
\n    Subject to this observation, the writ petition fails and
\nis dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs,
\nP.S.S.\t\t\t\t   Petition dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
989<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Mrs. Y. Theclamma vs Union Of India & Ors on 15 April, 1987 Equivalent citations: 1987 AIR 1210, 1987 SCR (2) 974 Author: A Sen Bench: Sen, A.P. (J) PETITIONER: MRS. Y. THECLAMMA Vs. RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT15\/04\/1987 BENCH: SEN, A.P. (J) BENCH: SEN, A.P. (J) […]<\/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-79262","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nMrs. Y. Theclamma vs Union Of India & Ors on 15 April, 1987 - 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\/mrs-y-theclamma-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-15-april-1987\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mrs. Y. Theclamma vs Union Of India & Ors on 15 April, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-y-theclamma-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-15-april-1987\" \/>\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=\"1987-04-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-12-27T17:37:49+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=\"29 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-y-theclamma-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-15-april-1987#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-y-theclamma-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-15-april-1987\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mrs. Y. Theclamma vs Union Of India & Ors on 15 April, 1987\",\"datePublished\":\"1987-04-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-27T17:37:49+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-y-theclamma-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-15-april-1987\"},\"wordCount\":4904,\"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\\\/mrs-y-theclamma-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-15-april-1987#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-y-theclamma-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-15-april-1987\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-y-theclamma-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-15-april-1987\",\"name\":\"Mrs. Y. Theclamma vs Union Of India & Ors on 15 April, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1987-04-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-27T17:37:49+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-y-theclamma-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-15-april-1987#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-y-theclamma-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-15-april-1987\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-y-theclamma-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-15-april-1987#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mrs. Y. Theclamma vs Union Of India & Ors on 15 April, 1987\"}]},{\"@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":"Mrs. Y. Theclamma vs Union Of India & Ors on 15 April, 1987 - 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\/mrs-y-theclamma-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-15-april-1987","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mrs. Y. Theclamma vs Union Of India & Ors on 15 April, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-y-theclamma-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-15-april-1987","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1987-04-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-12-27T17:37:49+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":"29 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-y-theclamma-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-15-april-1987#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-y-theclamma-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-15-april-1987"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mrs. Y. Theclamma vs Union Of India & Ors on 15 April, 1987","datePublished":"1987-04-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-27T17:37:49+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-y-theclamma-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-15-april-1987"},"wordCount":4904,"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\/mrs-y-theclamma-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-15-april-1987#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-y-theclamma-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-15-april-1987","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-y-theclamma-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-15-april-1987","name":"Mrs. Y. Theclamma vs Union Of India & Ors on 15 April, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1987-04-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-27T17:37:49+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-y-theclamma-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-15-april-1987#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-y-theclamma-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-15-april-1987"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-y-theclamma-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-15-april-1987#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mrs. Y. Theclamma vs Union Of India & Ors on 15 April, 1987"}]},{"@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\/79262","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=79262"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/79262\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=79262"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=79262"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=79262"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}