# M. SATYANARAYANA v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR

- **Citation:** [1986] 1 S.C.R. 692
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1986-03-12
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 600 of 1986
- **Bench:** Sabyasachi Mukharji, K.N. Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/m-satyanarayana-v-the-state-of-karnataka-anr-9296
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

A. Supreme Court Rules 1966 Rule SA of order XV - When
•
the
certificate
issued
under
Article
133(1) (bi
of
the
Constitution by the High Court is unwarranted on the facts of
the case the certificate TIP.1st be revoked and the appeal be
dismissed.
B. Construction of a statute, explained - Construction
of the word "and" in clalise (iii) of Rule 4 of the Karnataka
Medical Colleges (Selection of Candidates for Admission) Rules
1984 explained - Subb-clause (a) cannot be read independently
of sub-clause (b).
The
appellant who
is a
student of some
academic
distinction and ability sought admission to the Ist year of
MBBS Course under the special category ' being a son of a
freedoni fighter or political sufferer within the meaning of
clauae (iii) of Rule 4 of the Karnataka Medical Colleges
(Selection of Candidates for Admission), Rules 1984 who had
participated in 1942 Movement and was imprisoned from 10th of
September, 1942 to 2nd of October, 1942. Since he was not
granted admission under that category,
he filed a writ ~
petition before the Karnataka High Court contending that
sub-clause (a) of clause (iii) of Rule 4 of the 1984 Rules
should be read independently as well as sub-clause (b) not
only of each other but also what follows by way of proviso
though not so mentioned. Both the Writ Petition and a further
appeal to the Division Bench were dismissed. However, the Hign
Court granted a certificate under Article 133(l}(b) of the
Constitution.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court,
HELD : 1. Under Rule SA of Order XV of the Supreme Court
Rules, 1966 when a party to whom a certificate of fitness to
appeal has been granted by the High Court, the Supreme Court
M. SATYANARAYANA v. STATE
693
~may, either dismiss it summarily or direct issue of notice to
all necessary parties or may
make
such orders as
the
circumstances of the case may require.
In this case the
questiop involved is a simple one and the intention and the
purpose of Rule 4 of the Karnataka Medical Colleges (Selection
of Candidates for Admission) Rules 1984 is manifest and in the
language there is no difficulty. The certificate under Article
133(i)(b) of the Constitution to the effect that in the
.. ,opinion of the Kamataka High Court the question involved
needs to be decided by the Supreme Court is unwarranted.
[696 D-j!]
2.1 A statute cannot be construed merely with reference
to grrumier. Statute, whenever the language permits, IDJSt be
construed reasonably and rationally to give effect to the
·-intention and purpose of the legislature. The expression "and"
in clause (Hi) of Rule 4 has generally cU1111lative effect
requiring the fulfilment of all the conditions that it joins
together and it is the antithesis of "or". The
expression
"and" in the instant case, cannot be read disjunctively.
[696 C-D]
A.L Gopalan v. The State of Madras, [1950] s.c.R. 88 at
126; and lshwar Singh Bindra & Ors. v. The State of U.P.,
(1969] 1 s.c.R. 219 applied.
2. 2 It is not possible to hold that sub-clause (a)
should be read independently of sub-clause (b). If the
A
B
c
D
E
-
expression "and" in clause (a) is read independently then
there was no need for him to suffer at all and mere
participation would be enough to make him a political
sufferer. · If it were to be held so it would defeat the
F
ratioruile the Rllle 4 defining a political sufferer or freedom
fighter in the Rules. (695 G-ll; 696 C]

## Text

A
B
c
D
E
.F
G
H
692
M. SATYANARAYANA
v.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR.
MARCH 12, 1986
[SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND K.N. SINGH JJ.]
A. Supreme Court Rules 1966 Rule SA of order XV - When
•
the
certificate
issued
under
Article
133(1) (bi
of
the
Constitution by the High Court is unwarranted on the facts of
the case the certificate TIP.1st be revoked and the appeal be
dismissed.
B. Construction of a statute, explained - Construction
of the word "and" in clalise (iii) of Rule 4 of the Karnataka
Medical Colleges (Selection of Candidates for Admission) Rules
1984 explained - Subb-clause (a) cannot be read independently
of sub-clause (b).
The
appellant who
is a
student of some
academic
distinction and ability sought admission to the Ist year of
MBBS Course under the special category ' being a son of a
freedoni fighter or political sufferer within the meaning of
clauae (iii) of Rule 4 of the Karnataka Medical Colleges
(Selection of Candidates for Admission), Rules 1984 who had
participated in 1942 Movement and was imprisoned from 10th of
September, 1942 to 2nd of October, 1942. Since he was not
granted admission under that category,
he filed a writ ~
petition before the Karnataka High Court contending that
sub-clause (a) of clause (iii) of Rule 4 of the 1984 Rules
should be read independently as well as sub-clause (b) not
only of each other but also what follows by way of proviso
though not so mentioned. Both the Writ Petition and a further
appeal to the Division Bench were dismissed. However, the Hign
Court granted a certificate under Article 133(l}(b) of the
Constitution.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court,
HELD : 1. Under Rule SA of Order XV of the Supreme Court
Rules, 1966 when a party to whom a certificate of fitness to
appeal has been granted by the High Court, the Supreme Court
M. SATYANARAYANA v. STATE
693
~may, either dismiss it summarily or direct issue of notice to
all necessary parties or may
make
such orders as
the
circumstances of the case may require.
In this case the
questiop involved is a simple one and the intention and the
purpose of Rule 4 of the Karnataka Medical Colleges (Selection
of Candidates for Admission) Rules 1984 is manifest and in the
language there is no difficulty. The certificate under Article
133(i)(b) of the Constitution to the effect that in the
.. ,opinion of the Kamataka High Court the question involved
needs to be decided by the Supreme Court is unwarranted.
[696 D-j!]
2.1 A statute cannot be construed merely with reference
to grrumier. Statute, whenever the language permits, IDJSt be
construed reasonably and rationally to give effect to the
·-intention and purpose of the legislature. The expression "and"
in clause (Hi) of Rule 4 has generally cU1111lative effect
requiring the fulfilment of all the conditions that it joins
together and it is the antithesis of "or". The
expression
"and" in the instant case, cannot be read disjunctively.
[696 C-D]
A.L Gopalan v. The State of Madras, [1950] s.c.R. 88 at
126; and lshwar Singh Bindra & Ors. v. The State of U.P.,
(1969] 1 s.c.R. 219 applied.
2. 2 It is not possible to hold that sub-clause (a)
should be read independently of sub-clause (b). If the
A
B
c
D
E
-
expression "and" in clause (a) is read independently then
there was no need for him to suffer at all and mere
participation would be enough to make him a political
sufferer. · If it were to be held so it would defeat the
F
ratioruile the Rllle 4 defining a political sufferer or freedom
fighter in the Rules. (695 G-ll; 696 C]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 600 of
1986.
'-:-·
From the Judgment and Order dated 2.12.1985 of the
Karnataka High Court in Writ Appeal No. 2665 of 1985.
P.R. Ramasesh for the Appellant.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
694
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1986] 1 S.C.R.
SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J, This is an appeal by certificate 1,
under article 133 (1)(b) of the Constitution from the decision
of the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka dismissing the appeal against the judgment of the learned , single
Judge of that~h Court.
The appellant herein who is a
~student of some academic distinction and ability sought admission to the 1st year of M.B.B.S. Course to the Directorate of
Medical Education, Karnataka. The appellant was an applicant
to one of the Government seats in the Medical Colleges managed ,._
by the Government or one of the seats to which the Government
was entitled to in the private medical colleges.
The
appellant was
seeking admission under special
category reserved for sons of political sufferers or freedom
fighters. The relevant rule is Rule 4 of the Karnataka Medical
Colleges (Selection of Candidates for Admission) Rules 1984. 4
Note (iii) of the said Rule has defined a political Sufferer
or Freedom Fighter as follows :
"A person
(a) who prior to 15th August, 1947 participated in
the National Movement for the emanicipation of
India, that is in the struggle for Indian Independence; and
(b) who even after 15th August, 1947 participated
in the struggle in any princely State for securing
accession of such State to the then dominion of ,ii
India, who on account of such participation -
ti
(i) has suffered imprisonment or detention for a
p_eriod of not less than three months, the said
period being calculated taking into account the
period of remission, if any, granted for good
conduct, other like reasons; or
(ii) has been awarded capital punishment; or
(iii) had
died while
undergoing
sentence 'or
detention; or
(iv) was killed or became permanently incapacitated
by Police or Military firing or lathi charge; or
M. SATYANARAYANA v. STATE [MUKHARJI, J.]
695
(v) lost his job, property or other means of
livelihood;
A
(vi) where certificates of imprisonment are not
available due to records being destroyed, etc., an
affidavit by the political sufferer about his imB
prisonment supported by a certificate from a Member
of Parliament or a Member of the State Legislature,
who has been in jail with him specifying the period
of imprisonment would be accepted."
The case of the appellant was that his father had
participated in 1942 Movement and was imprisoned from 10th of
C
September, 1942 to 2nd of October, 1942. His further case is
that because of the aforesaid participation, his grand father
i.e. father of the appellant's father, was annoyed and turned
{lim out of the house and so the father of the appellant could
~-< ,'10t pursue his studies and therefore could not qualify himself
' well for good job. The appellant claimed admission on the
D
ground of being a son of a freedom fighter or political
sufferer and that he belongs to a special category and should
be treated as such. It is contended that sub-clause (a) of
clause (iii) of the note 4 of the Rules should be read independently as well as sub-clause (b) not only of each other but
also what follows by way of proviso though not so mentioned.
E
The learned judge was unable to accept that contention. The
division Bench accepted this view of the learned single Judge.
•.
Reservations in favour of sons of political sufferers are
onsidered to be belonging to a special category. There is
rationale behind it. Those who are political sufferers undergo
F
certain disadvantages and pass on such disadvantages to their
children. They will be in a worse position than the children
of those who are not political sufferers for the purpose of
taking adequate
education; attention etc.
because their
parents might have languished in any prison or might have been
deprived of property. Looked at from that point of view, poliG
tical sufferer should be an identifiable person who could be
'"'recognised as such on certain rational basis. It is, therefore, manifest that a person to be a political sufferer must
have suffered in any one of the five ways stated in sub-clause
(i) to (v) of clause (b).
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
696
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1986] i s.c.R.
If the
expression
'and'
in
clause
(a)
is
read"
independently then there was no need for him to suffer at all
and mere participation would be enough to make him a political
sufferer. That would defeat the rationale behind the rule. It
would, therefore, frustrate the intention and purpose of the
legislature, The expression 'and' in these circumstances
cannot be resd disjunctively. It is not possible to hold that
sub-clause (a) should be read independently of sub-clause (b),
A statute cannot be construed merely with reference to'-
grammar.
Statute whenever
the language permits llllSt be
construed reasonably and rationally to give effect to the
intention and purpose of the legislature. The expression 'and'
has generally a culll.llative effect, requiring the fulfilment of
all the conditions that it joins together and it is the antithesis of 'or'. In this connection reference may be made to
A.L Gopa1.an v. The State of Madras, [1950] s.c.R. 88 at 126 •.
See also the observations of this Court in Isbwar Singh Bindra(
& Ors. v. The State of u.P., [1969] l s.c.R. 219.
\-~
This construction, put by High Court, in our opinion, is
logical and
reasonable construction.
The High Court as
mentioned hereinbefore has granted a certificate under article
133 (l)(b) of the Constitution. We find that the question is a
simple one and the intention and the purpose of the rule is
manifest and in the language, there is no difficulty. The
certificate under article 133 (l)(b) of the Constitution, in
our opinion, was therefore unwarranted. We, therefore, revoke
the certificate and dismiss the appeal SUIJlllSrily under Rule
5-A of Order XV of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966, We, however,
make it clear that the appellant, the student in question, i
a student of some credit and distinction and has obtained 74%
of the marks in his examination. His case should be considered
favourably
and objectively in the general category for
admission.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be
G
no order as to costs,
S.R.
Appeal dismissed.
H