LAW

Supreme Court On Harmonisation of Central and State Law

T.K.V.T.S.S. Medical Educational and Charitable Trust, Appellant v. State of Tamil Nadu and others, Respondents.

S.C. AGRAWAL AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.

Constitution of India, Article 254 – Repugnancy between Central Act and State Act - Determination -Containing of contradictory provisions - Not the only criterion - Competent legislature with superior efficacy expressly or impliedly evincing, by its legislation, intention to cover whole field - Repugnancy can arise. Constitution of India, Article 254 (1)(2), Proviso -Medical Council Act (102 of 1956), Section 10A - M.G.R.Medical University Act (37 of 1987) Section 5(5), Proviso -Establishment of new medical College - Section 10A of Central Act occupies entire field - Requirement of prior permission in proviso to Section 5(5) of State Act - It is repugnant to Section 10 of Central Act - Permission for establishment of college granted by Central Government -Further permission from State Government – Not necessary.

A.P. High Court on Writ against Private Body's Decision Approved by State

N. Sivarama Chandrasekhara Rao. Petitioner v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others. Respondents.

MOTILAL B. NAIK, J.

Constitution of India, Article 226 - Writ against private body - Educational society - Resolution by governing body replacing previous secretary with new one-Not in accordance with articles of association of society -Notice of meeting in which resolution was passed not given to all members of governing body - Writ petition, against approval of such resolution by Commissioner of Collegiate education. - Maintainable though society was not 'State' as approval of resolution by Commissioner was in discharge of public duty.

Where a resolution passed by governing body of educational society was approved by the Commissioner of Collegiate Education. State Government though resolution was not in accordance with articles of association of society such action of Commissioner would be amenable to jurisdiction under Article 226 though the society itself was not the 'State' within the meaning of Article 12. The action of the Commissioner in approving the resolution of the Governing Body is in discharge of a public duty. Failing to perform a public duty in accordance with the Articles of Association/Bye-law, such an action could be brought within the ambit of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. It cannot be said that private actions, though they are to be approved by the State or a public authority, are only to be called in question in other forums constituted. Such an arrow interpretation cannot be given to Article 226 of the Constitution.

J.P. Narayan'a Letter to P.M. Indira Gandhi, 11 December, 1966

On Total Ban on Cow Slaughter You know of the longstanding agitation for banning cow-slaughter. In the last session of Parliament also this issue had figured. I understand that Hindu religious leaders of top status, such as some of the Jagad guru Shankaracharyas, have decided to go on fasts unto death from November 20 this year.

I am enclosing for your information certain leaflets which have been supplied to me by the local leaders of this movement. I particularly draw your attention to one paragraph in one of the Hindi leaflets entitled Poojya mahatmaon ka amaran anshan.

I would, therefore, very strongly advise you to ask the Home Ministry to investigate this matter thoroughly, if necessary to meet the Sankaracharyas and other religious leaders involved, and make an objective assessment so that an intelligent decision could be taken by you.

For myself, I cannot understand why in a Hindu majority country like India, where rightly or wrongly there is such strong feeling about cow-slaughter, there cannot be a legal ban. In all the Muslim countries even those who are considered to be most modern I doubt if pork would be allowed to be sold or served in public places. I think the same would be true for Israel. Likewise, in some Christian countries on certain days of the year for meat is eaten or sold

From a purely rational point of view, all this may be considered to be irrational, but human life, as you know is far more irrational than rational.

RSS Chief on Muslim's 'Right'.

The Koran did not encourage beef-eating. The Calcutta High Court has also mentioned in its verdict, delivered against the West Bengal Government that slaughtering the cow on festival or religious occasion was no religious right of the Muslim community.