| Citation | 1963 AIR 1811 1964 SCR (4) 89 |
| Date of judgement | 26/07/1963 |
| Court | Supreme Court |
| Case type | Civil |
| Appellant | THE STATE TRADING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. & OTHERS |
| Respondent | THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, VISAKHAPATNAM AND OTHERS |
| Bench | Sinha, Bhuvneshwar P.(Cj), Das, S.K. & Gajendragadkar, P.B., Sarkar, A.K. & Wanchoo, K.N., Hidayatullah, M. & Gupta, K.C. Das, Shah, J.C. & Ayyangar, N. Rajagopala |
| Referred | Articles 19(1)(f)[1], and 19(1)(g)[2] of the Indian Constitution |
FACTS OF THE CASE-
• The State Trading Company had applied to the court for special writs against the state-led excise authority targeting the corporation. The purpose of the petition was to establish the fact of Article 32 of the Constitution, which permits the Supreme Court to issue special orders to enforce the rights of citizens. The address as to whether the STC which may be a company that is enrolled beneath the Indian Companies Act, 1956 can be considered as a citizen and can quest for the authorization of the fundamental rights of citizens and whether the STO is an organ of the government and can appeal for the enforcement of the rights of citizens against a state as beneath part III of the structure of India.
• The petitioner, “The State Trading Corporation of Asian nation Ltd”, a non-public company enrolled underneath the businesses Act, 1956 claimed it to be Relate in Nursing Indian nationals. The Applicants have recorded an official report request underneath Article thirty-two some time recently the Hon’ble Preeminent Court of India against the encroachment of basic Right to Opportunity justified underneath Articles 19(1)(f)[1] and 19(1)(g)[2] of the Indian Constitution. The official report request was recorded from the excise Evaluation procedures started by the excise Specialists of states especially, Andhra Pradesh and state and coming about the issue of taking note exacting such access from the applicant company.
• The petitioner wanted to quash the procedures and so, recorded an official record request. The petitioners have moreover claimed themselves to be a Government Company.
• On the other hand, the respondent, the business Tax Officer of Vishakhapatnam raised preparatory goals on Indian citizenship and nature on the government Company of the applicant.
ISSUES
1) Whether or not the STC, an organization enrolled underneath the Indian firm’s Act, 1956, can be a country among which suggests of Art. nineteen of the Structure and might fire the social control of rudimentary rights allowed to voters underneath the previously mentioned article.
2) Whether or not the STC is, withal the custom of joining underneath the Indian firm’s Act, 1956, in substance, a office Relate in Nursing an organ of the govt. of the Asian nation with all of its capital contributed by Government; and might its claim to uphold basic rights underneath half III of the Structure against the State as laid out in Art. twelve of the Structure.
ARGUMENTS
Appellant
Applicant’s attorneys argued that
• Part 2 of the Indian Constitution or the Citizenship Act 1955 does not cover the issue of citizenship extensively.
• Nationality depends on the place of incorporation of the company. • In addition, due to the company’s corporate structure, 98% of its capital was funded by the government. He is an Indian of Asian descent and is registered under the names of President and Governor, the other two being two joint secretaries of the Ministry of Trade and Industry, whose major shareholder is the India division.
Respondent
Defendant’s knowledgeable attorney argued so.
• The petitioner does not fall within the scope of the term ‘citizen’ as defined in Article 19 of the Indian Constitution, as the corporation does not appear to be recognized as a voter under the Citizenship Act 1955 or the constitutions of Asian countries. Not applicable.
• A petitioner’s company cannot be called a government company just because the government exists. An Asian country is a major contributor to this fund.
JUDGEMENT
Chief Justice Sinha (on behalf of majority)-The Hon’ble apex Court drawing a crystal-clear distinction between “nationality” and “citizenship” expressed that a nation is a national however all nationals don’t seem to be voters and, nationality is often claimed by an organization under the place of its incorporation however as way because the citizenship is bothered, it can’t be no inheritable just by incorporation at a specific place.
• Chief Justice Sinha (on behalf of majority)- The apex Court negated the distinctive side of citizenship between half II (Citizenship) and half III (Fundamental Rights) of the Indian Constitution. Moreover, the court additionally spoke regarding however some elementary Rights area unit certain to “any person” inclusive of voters, aliens, natural or legal persons, et al specifically to “all citizens”.
• Chief Justice Sinha (on behalf of majority) – The Court has additionally highlighted the very fact that when careful perusing of Article nineteen that advocates the proper to freedom that features right to assemble peacefully and while not arms[4], right to maneuver freely throughout the territory of India[5] and also the right to reside and settle in any a part of the territory of India[6], a conclusion is often drawn that these said rights can’t be enjoyed by an organization and therefore, it’s can’t be known as a “citizen” below Article nineteen.
• Justice Hidayatullah (majority; extra viewpoint)- The court additionally expressed that an organization doesn’t become a nation simply because of the standing of its member’s area unit Indian. the corporate encompasses a separate legal temperament distinct from its members.
• Justice monarch (dissenting opinion) – The term “person” and “citizen” might also embrace legal persons together with firms.
• Justice Das Gupta (adopted middle ground between the bulk and negative opinion) – to work out that the corporate could be a national or not, the company veil should be pierced/ raised to grasp the citizenship of its shareholders.
• The 9 Judges bench once and for all negated the likelihood of treating firms as voters whereas implementing Article 19[7] of the Constitution.
CONCLUSION
This judgment in 1963 might be a point of reference since; it proceeds to carry essence indeed these days. it’s Relate in Nursing incontestable irrefutable reality that lawful people like firms don’t appear to be thought-about voters, in any case, might too be nationals of a nation; not entitled to rights that “citizens” are displayed with as a result of they’re not normal in any case counterfeit legitimate people having isolated lawful identities of their own. However, there are a unit times that have to be puncture the cloak and recognize the $64000 people behind the working of a man-made body, and consequently, the thought of the lifting of the company shroud is meticulous.
REFERENCES
https://www.manupatrafast.com/
This case analysis is written by Ananaya Shee of Narsee Monjee Institute of Management Studies, Bangalore, intern at Legal Vidhiya.
