No Acts & Articles mentioned in this case
A
D
E
F
G
/
H
926
RAM JETHMALANI, ETC
v.
UNION OF INDIA, ETC.
June 19, 1984
[E.S. VENKATARAMIAH, J.]
Constitution of India_ i950, Article 32. National Security Act, 1980, Sectioh
3 and The Supreme Court Rules 1966, O.rder II rule 6 and Order, VII rule 4 (5).
Writ petitions assailing detention of de(enu ·.under National Security Act.-.
Vacatio11 Judge hearing petitions-Itnportant questions touching security of nation
and personal
/jberty involved-Larger Bench
hearing matter-Necessity of.
The petition_ers in their writ petitions to this Court assailed the deten
tion of a member of the Sikh Community u·nder the National Security Act,
1980.
HELD: 1. These are not ordinary criminal cases involving'a few individuals.
coming from a smalt loca1ity. These a~e extraordinary cases involving serious
questions
of great public importance touching the security of the nation as well
as personal liberty of a
s,izeable section of the community. These cases hitve
to be dealt v.·ith differently from the usual cases which come up before this
Court. [927 C-D]
2. In handling these cases the highest judicial talent and statesmanship
are needed and hence. these cases cannot just be rejected reserving liberty to ·
the applica·nts to approach a Judicial Magistrate, a Sessions Judge or even the
High Court. Every step taken in these cases should serve as a healing touch
bringing solace .to all concerned and lessening by some degree the ,pain and
suffering through which the country and its peace-loving people have passed
and are passing. These proce~dings should "have the effect of assuaging the
outraged feelings of many who till now may not be aware of.what has actually
happened. [927 F-G]
3. The questions involved ·are too large and complex for the
shoulders of a Single Judge to bear. These and other cases of like nature should
be heard
by at least
seven learned Judges of this Court whose unquestioned
judicial authority, erudition and acumen would be, of great assistance in 'the
restoration of peace in one of the States known for valour, devotion, spirit of
sacrifice and sense of duty towards the country of the people residing in it.
[927 H ; 928 A]
4. Even ir' alle°'gations of serious offences against the Stat~ may_ 'be
forthcoming against the arrested ·persons, the Court n1ay stilt consider whether
it is not possible -enlarge
at least some of them,
who may be in 'a repentant
mood, on bail to facilitate early restoration of normalcy in the State. There
·may be many other things which may be done and they are within the domain
of the Judges, who may .hear these cases. Jf this Court in the end can succetd
in establishing peace· and ,harmony in ihe country, it would be its finest
!tour. {9280-H ; 929 A[ •
(Cases reffene~ to Larscr Jl~nch.)
'
,.
'
•
Ii.AM JETH MALANi v. UNION ( Venkataramiah, i.) 921
·ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Criminal) Nos. 920 A
and 934 of 1984.
(Under article 32 of the Constitution of India)
P.R. Mri1ul, R.D. Agarwala and R.N. Poddar for the Appli
cant/Respondent.
Miss 'Rani Jethma/ani, G.S. Cheema and Shailendra Bhardwaj
for the Opp. side/petitioners.
The 01der of the Court was delivered by
VENKATARAMIAH, · J; These cases are just two in number.
There may be many other cases
of this nature which
bave ,not yet
B
reached this Court but may be filed shortly. These are not ordinary c
criminal cases irtvolving a few individuals . coming from a small
locality. These are extraordinary cases involving serious questions
of great public importance touching the security of the nation as
well as
pers'onal liberty of a sizeable section or the community,
many
of
whom· may have been made to believe by a dominant
section
of
sopiety, may be wrongly, that what they were doing was D
right and for that reason may not have been free agents. Hence
these cases have to be dealt with differently from the usual cases
which come up before this Court.
First a word
of caution. In the course of these proceedings
every word uttered on either side
of the Bar should be weighed
before it
is used. There is no room for heat and passion ; logic and
reason alone
.should rule the debates. There should be an all round
sympathy in dealing with the complex issues which
may arise for
determination. In handling' these cases the highest judicial talen~
and statesmanship are. needed and hence these cases cannot just be
rejected reserving liberty
to the applicants to approach a Judicial
Magistrate, a Sessions Judge or even the High Court. Every step
taken in these
c~ses should serve as a healing touch bringing solace
to all concerned and lessening by some degree the pain and suffer-
ing through which the country and its peace-loving people have
passed and are passing. These proceedings should have the effect
. of assuaging the outraged feelings of1nany who till now may not be
aware
of what has actually happened. Any amount of time spent
by the highest Court
of this land on these cases would not go in
vain. There
is no. duty more. sacred than this.
I, however, feel that the questions involved are too.large and
complex
for the shoulders of. a
Single Judge to bear. It is my
humble view that these and other cases of like nature should be
heard by at least seven learned Judges of this Court whose unques-.
tioned judicial authority, erudition and acumen would be
of
great
E
F
G
•
B
c
D
E
F .G
H
92S SUPi.EME COURT REPOJ.TS \.19\4) 3 s.C. R..
assistance in the restoration of peace in one of our great States
known for the valour, the devotion, the spirit of sacrifice and the
sense of duty towards the country or' the people residing in it
May I say that th~r¢ can be no compromise on the following
matters, namely, unity and integrity
·Of
India, lhe secular and·
democratic form of the Indian Government arid the suprema~y of
the Indian Constitution ? They must be uppeld in any event. There
cannot be.any doubt abonnhe right of the established Government
to run the administration of the country. We should remember, that
India ·is
no doubt a
Union of States, but the boundarie,. of the
States are not unalterable. There is only one citizenship in India
and that all.of us.:. Indian citizens-belong to the whole oflndia
and the whole of India belongs to all of us, Man-made boundaries
, cannot divide us. Language, religion, caste and other factors can·
not be allowed to drive a wedge between one section and another.
Ir is good to 'remembeF here what Abrahaip. Lincoln said though in
another context in 1858, 'A house divided again~t itself cannot
stand'.· The issue now before . the Court · involves more than the
future of India .. Again to quote Lincoln from what he said in the
American context :
"It presents to tl'l.e whole family of man, the ~111estion
wnether a· constitutional republic or a democracy-a govern-
. ment of the people,
by the same people-can or cannot
maintain its territorial integrity,
agai.nst its own domestic
foes''..(')
Tue above words appear to be relevant in the present Indian
conteiot.too. ·
· The unfolding of facU in these cases may make those who
may have erred to realise where they hav; erred and how they have
erred. It may help the Court to suggest solutions for rectilying the
·undesirable effects of such errors, ,
Even if allegations of serious
·
offences against the State may be forthcoming against the arrested
persons, the Court may still consider whether it is not possible to
enlarge at least some of them,
who may be in a repentant mood,
on bail to facilitate early restoration
of normalcy in the
State. The
Court may at some stage have occasion to consider whether it
•
(1) (Vide; The first message to the Congress after the fall of Fort Sumter r
during the American civil \Var). ·
•
•
r.
•
ll.AM JETHMALANI v. UNION (Venkataramiah, J.) 929
should recommend to Parliament to pass an Act of Indemnity which
may be an act
of great sagacity, thus drawing the curtain on this
un·
happy page of the. history of tb!indian Republic. These may be many
other things which may be done and they are within the domain of
my learned Brothers who may hear these cases. -If this Court.in the
end.cah succeed in establishing peace and harmony in the country,
it would be its finest hour.
I, therefore, refer these cases to a larger. Bench with the fond
hope that our country would have no occasion .in the future to face
a similar situation.
A
B
These papers may be placed before the Hon'ble the Chief
C
Justice of India fot appropriate directions.
N.V.K . Cases referred to larger bench.
•
•
•
The landmark 1984 case of Ram Jethmalani, etc v. Union of India, etc, a pivotal judgment concerning detentions under the National Security Act, is now authoritatively detailed on CaseOn. This case examines the judiciary's profound role when faced with a writ petition under Article 32 that touches upon the very fabric of national unity and personal liberty. Presided over by a single Vacation Judge, Justice E.S. Venkataramiah, the ruling became a masterclass in judicial wisdom, emphasizing healing and reconciliation over mere legal adjudication.
In June 1984, the Supreme Court was approached with writ petitions challenging the detention of members of the Sikh Community under the stringent National Security Act, 1980. These petitions, filed amidst a period of significant national turmoil, came before Justice E.S. Venkataramiah, who was sitting as the Vacation Judge. The core question was not just the legality of the detentions but how the nation's highest court should approach matters of such profound sensitivity and public importance.
The central issue before the Court was: What is the appropriate judicial procedure and response for a single Vacation Judge when confronted with writ petitions that are not ordinary criminal matters but extraordinary cases involving grave questions of national security, public order, and the personal liberty of a significant section of the community?
The case was considered under the following legal and constitutional provisions:
Justice Venkataramiah’s analysis transcended a narrow, technical interpretation of the law. He recognized the immense gravity of the situation and approached it with profound statesmanship.
The Court immediately distinguished these petitions from routine criminal cases. Justice Venkataramiah noted, "These are not ordinary criminal cases involving a few individuals... These are extraordinary cases involving serious questions of great public importance touching the security of the nation as well as personal liberty of a sizeable section of the community." He concluded that such matters could not be simply dismissed or delegated to a lower court; they demanded the highest level of judicial attention.
A significant part of the judgment focused on the Court's role in national reconciliation. Justice Venkataramiah eloquently stated that every step taken "should serve as a healing touch bringing solace to all concerned and lessening by some degree the pain and suffering." He envisioned the proceedings as a means to "assuage the outraged feelings of many," thereby contributing to the restoration of peace and harmony.
For legal professionals short on time, understanding the intricate reasoning in rulings like this is made easier with CaseOn.in's 2-minute audio briefs, providing a quick yet comprehensive overview of the judgment's core arguments.
Acknowledging the immense weight of the issues, Justice Venkataramiah expressed his humble view that the questions were "too large and complex for the shoulders of a Single Judge to bear." He argued that matters of such magnitude, impacting a state known for its "valour, devotion, spirit of sacrifice and sense of duty," required the collective wisdom and unquestioned authority of a larger bench. He therefore proposed that the cases be heard by "at least seven learned Judges of this Court."
The Court looked beyond the immediate legal questions to potential long-term solutions. It suggested that a larger bench could explore various avenues to facilitate peace, such as considering bail for individuals who might be in a "repentant mood" or even recommending that Parliament pass an "Act of Indemnity" to draw a curtain on the unhappy chapter. This forward-looking perspective highlighted the judiciary's potential role as a catalyst for national healing.
In a decision marked by profound humility and wisdom, Justice E.S. Venkataramiah concluded that the writ petitions were of such exceptional national importance that they could not be adjudicated by a single judge. He referred the cases to a larger bench, placing the papers before the Chief Justice of India for the constitution of an appropriate bench, hoping that the Court's involvement would ultimately succeed in "establishing peace and harmony in the country," which he termed its "finest hour."
The judgment in Ram Jethmalani v. Union of India is not a final verdict on the merits of the detentions but a procedural order with deep substantive implications. It establishes the principle that cases affecting national security and the liberties of a large community are extraordinary and must be handled with the highest degree of judicial statesmanship. Instead of a narrow legalistic approach, the Court advocated for a process that acts as a 'healing touch' and referred the matter to a larger bench of at least seven judges to ensure the decision carried unquestionable authority and contributed to national reconciliation.
Disclaimer: The information provided in this article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For advice on any legal issue, please consult with a qualified legal professional.
Legal Notes
Add a Note....