Ranji Thomas v. Union Of India And Others

Factual and Procedural Background

A public interest litigation (PIL) writ petition was filed seeking the Court’s intervention to restrain the President of India from “forcibly” extracting resignations from various Governors and Lt. Governors (Respondents 3 to 29) and to prevent acceptance of allegedly “involuntary” resignations submitted in January 1990. The petition sought (i) quashing of the resignations, (ii) restraint on the President from accepting such resignations, and (iii) a declaration that the President’s communication seeking resignations was ultra vires the Constitution.

A two-Judge Bench, by order dated 9-2-1990, referred the writ petition to a Constitution Bench due to the importance of questions concerning the interpretation of Article 156 of the Constitution in the context of Chapter II of the Constitution.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the PIL was maintainable to seek quashing of and restraint against acceptance of the Governors’ and Lt. Governors’ resignations when none of the affected office-holders had approached the Court or protested.
2. Whether the petitioner had locus to seek a declaration that the President’s communication seeking resignations was ultra vires the Constitution, involving interpretation of Article 156 of the Constitution of India.
3. Whether the petition could be adjudicated on the existing record, given the asserted lack of disclosed and authenticated material regarding the President’s communication.

Arguments of the Parties

Union of India’s Arguments

• In its counter-affidavit, the Union stated there had been no “forcible extraction” of resignations and that the Governors resigned “without any protest”.
• The Attorney General submitted that the PIL was not maintainable because none of the Governors or Lt. Governors had approached the Court or protested, and the petitioner could not challenge an act that the affected parties did not wish or intend to challenge.
• The Attorney General relied on observations in S.P Gupta v. Union of India, 1981 Supp SCC 87, (1982) 2 SCR 365.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court accepted, with respect to prayers (a) and (b), the submission of the Attorney General that the PIL was not maintainable in circumstances where the affected Governors and Lt. Governors had not approached the Court or protested against being asked to resign. However, the Court treated prayer (c)—seeking a declaration that the President’s communication was ultra vires—as raising an important public issue involving interpretation of Article 156, and stated that it did not think it could deny locus to the petitioner to raise that issue.

Despite recognising the public importance of prayer (c), the Court found the evidentiary basis for adjudication “absolutely scanty and wanting.” The alleged communication from the President was not disclosed, and the petitioner placed on record no material beyond a couple of newspaper reports, whose correction had not been verified or authenticated. In light of the inadequate factual matrix, and as the petitioner (appearing in person) stated he had been unable to procure relevant material even though the writ petition had been filed about ten years earlier, the petitioner sought withdrawal.

Holding and Implications

DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN (No costs).

The immediate effect was that no adjudication occurred on the merits of any of the prayers, including the constitutional question concerning Article 156 and the alleged ultra vires nature of the President’s communication. The order records withdrawal due to the petitioner’s inability to place sufficient material on record; it did not set any new precedent on the substantive constitutional issues raised.