MADHUBHAI AMATHALAL GANDHI versus THE UNION OF INDIA

MADHUBHAI AMATHALAL GANDHI v. THE UNION OF INDIA.

(B. P. SINHA,. c. J., J. L. KAPUR, P. B. GAJENDRA-GADKAR, K. RrrBBA RAo and K. N. WANCHOO, JJ.)

Stock Exchange-Rules for membership-Notification laying· conditions restricting membership -Classification between active members and others-,-Whether unreasonable or infringed fundamental rights-Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, z956, (42 of r956) s. 4 ~Securities Contracts (Regulation) Rules, ·r957, rr. r7-22.

The Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956, was enact-ed with the object of preventing undesirable transactions in securities by regulating the stock exchange business, and the.Act conferred an effective controlling power on. the Central Govern-ment over the stock exchange. In exercise of the power conferred on the Central Government to make rules the Central Govern-ment made rules described as the Securities Contracts (Regula-tion) Rules, 1957, providing, int~r:alia, for the•qualification for membership of stock exchange ·seeking recognition etc. After the Act came into force ~wo Companies, namely, the Native Share and. Stock Brokers' f\ssociation and the Indian Stock Exchange Limited doing stock exchange business in Greater Bombay appli-ed for recognition under the· Act: The Government after consi- . dering the merits 6f the companies and the relevant circum-stances issued notification dated August 31, 1957, r~cognising the Native Share and Stock Brokers' Association under the name "The Stock Exchange, Bombay" subject to certain conditions. One of the/cohditfons was that the members of the other com-. pany, India·Stot~Exchange Limited, would be entitled to apply· for membership hf the Stock Exchange, Bombay, provided they were active members of the Indian Stock Exchange Limited for 12 months immediately preceding August 6, 1957. and they were also eligible under r. 8(1) of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Rules, 1957, to be members of recognised sto9k exchange. Within the time granted for applying for membership num-ber 'of active members of the Indian Stock Exc4ange Limited applied for membership and were admitted as members of the recognised Stock Exchange. Though three years had elapsed after this no member. other than the petitioner· questioned the validity of the notification which was accepted and therecognis-ed. Stock Exchange became established. The petitioner, how-- ever, filed petition under Art. 32. of the Constitution praying . that the Union be directed to withdraw or cancel the notification dated August 31, 1957, recognising the Stock Exchange, Bombay, under s. 4 ·of the Securities Contracts (Regulation)· Act, 1956. Subsequently on November 30, 1957~ the Central GoV¢mment

August 17.

1960 issued another notification applying s. 13 of the Act to Greater Bombay with the result that thereafter every contract in shares Mad1&uhha1 between the members of any unrecognised stock exchange in An1atAalal (;andlii that city v.·ould be illegal. The contentions of the petitiont:r in v. the petition for the issue of \\·rit of mandamus v.•ere that The Union of under Art. 19(1){g) of the Constitution he had fundam,,utal India right to carry on business in shares anJ the two notifications in question imp0scd unreasonable restrictions on his right, that the notification dated August 3r, 1957, \Va:> void as it \\·a:; not sa11c-tioncsl by the provisions of s. 4 of the'Act, that the condi-tion 2(i)(a) of the said notification classifying members oi the Indian Stock Exchange IJimited as active members and members who were not active infringed fundamental right granted under Art. r4 of the Constitution and as the s1id condition was not severable the entire notiJication was l>ad. The respondent besides controverting the said contentions furthe_r contended that as the petitioner had not <!_tJestioned the validity of the Act it-self the notification issued thereunder could not l>c questioned.Held, that the \'olidity of notification could not he ques-tioned if it v;as issued under self contained 1\ct and restated the provisions of the Act the validity of ~hich was accepted. If, however, the Act conferred power on the State in general terms and the notification issued thereunder infringed any of the fundamental rights it could be attacked even though the Act was valid.

The Stock Exchange Rules did not operate as har against the petitioner becoming member of the Stock Exchange sub-ject to the rules governing such application_

The restrictions and conditions in1posed under the notifica-tion in question were not unreasonable. The condition restrict-ing membership to active members only is germane to the recognition of the Stock Exchange and is therefore, condi-tion within the meaning of "any other conditions" in cl. (b) of 'subs. (1) of s. 4 of the Act.

The classification bet'.Yeen active members and others was justifiable and the period fixed by the Government as the standard for ascertaining the active membership was neither arbitrary nor unreasonable.

There was presumption in favour of the State that there y.·as reasonable basis for the classification and the burden to prove that it violated the guarantee of eqcal protection lay on the petitioner who impcachr.d it.

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No, 136 of 1957_

Writ Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution. of India for enforcement of Fundamental Rights,

1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS

Purshoitam Tricumdas, Mukund R. Mody, Anil B. Divan, Ramesh A. Shroff and I. N. Shroff, for the petitioner. G. K. Daphtary, Solicitor.General of India, R. Gana-pathy Iyer and R. H. Dhebar, for respondent. 1960. August 17. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

Madhubhai Amathalal Gandhi v. The Union of India

SUBBA RAO J.-This is petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution for the issue of writ of mandamus or writ in the nat·ure of mandamus or any other appropriate direction, order or writ to direct the res-pondent, the Union of India, to withdraw or cancel the notification dated August 31, 1957, recognising " the Stock Exchange, Bombay " under s. 4 of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 (XLII of 1956), (hereiµafter referred to as "the Act").

Subba Rao J.

At the outset it is necessary to notice briefly how Stock Exchange is worked and how it is controlled or regulated by the State. "Stock Exchange " means, "any body of iudividuals, whether incorporated or not, constituted for the purpose of assisting or con-trolling the business of buying, selling or dealing in securities". The history of stock exchanges in foreign countries as well as in India shows that the development of joint stock enterprise would never have reached its present stage but for the facilities which the stock exchanges provided for dealing in securities. They have very important function to fulfil in the country's economy. Their main function, in the words of an eminent writer, is "to liquify capi-tal by enabling person who has invested money in, say, factory or railway, to convert it into cash by disposing of his share in the enterprise to someone else". vVithout the stock exchange, capital would become immobilized. The proper working· of stock exchange depends upon not only the moral stature of the memberll but also on their calibre. It is trite saying that jobber or dealer is born and not made. In the words of the same author, jobber must be man of good nerve, cool judgment, and ready to deal

i96o under a.ny ordinary conditions, a.nd he must be ma.n M dh b. . of fina.ncial sta.nding, considerable experience, with a.n "Ama•h"ala~ ~::idhi understanding of ma.rket psychology. There a.re three v. modes of dee.ling in she.res and stocks, na.moly, (1) spot

ne Unio>< of delivery contra.ct., i.e., .a. contra.ct which provides for

I.•dia the actua.I delivery of securities on the pa.ymeut of a. price thereof either on the da.y of the contra.ct or the Subba Rao f. next da.y, excluding perhaps tht' period taken for the despatch of tho securities or the remilta.nce of money frwn one place to a.nother; (2) rea.dy delivery contra.ct, which means contra.ct for the purchase or sale of securities for the performance of which no timo is specified and which is to be performed immediately or within rea.sona.ble time; (3) forward contra.cts, i.e., contra.ots whereunder the parties a.gree for their per-forma.nce at future <late. If the stock exchange is in the ha.nds of unscrupulous members, the second a.nd third categories of contracts to buy or sell shares ma.y degenerate into highly specula.tive tranea.ctions or, wha.t is worse, purdy gambling ones. Whero tho parties do not intend wbilo entering into contract of sa.le or purchase of securities tha.t only difference in prices should be pa.id, the tra.nsa.ction, even though speculative, is valid and not void, for "there is no law age.inst speculation as there is age.inst gambling". But, if the pa.rties do not intend tha.t there should be a.ny delivery of tho she.res but only the difference in prices should be accounted for, tho contract, being wa.ger, is void. More often than not it is difficult for a. court to distinguish one from the other, as wager-ing transaction may be so cleverly camoufia.ged a.s to pa.ss off a.s a. speculative transaction. These mischievpus potentialities inherent in the tra.nsa.ctions, if left uncontrolled, would tend to subvert the ma.in object of the institution of stock excha.nge and convert it into a. den of gambling which would ultimately upset the industrial economy of the country.

For tha.t reason, in Bomba.y a.s ea.rly as 1925, tho Bomba.y Securities Contracts Control Act was pa.sscd to regulate and control contracts for the purchase and 'sale of securities in the City of Bombay a.nd elsewhere in the J3ombay Presidency. Under s. 6 of tha.t Act,

"Every contract for the purchase or sale of securities, r960 other than ready delivery contract, entered into after date to be notified in this behalf by the Pro-A Madhubhai vmc1a ' ' \ overnment s ]J vo1 'd , un ess t same is J . matha/al made subject to and in accordance with the rules duly. Tile J~ion of sanctioned under s. 5 and every such contract shall be India void unless the same is made between members or through member of ree<ignised stock exchange; Subba Rao J. and no claim shall be allowed in any Civil Court for the recovery of any commission, brokerage, fee or reward in respect of any such contract". But this Act defined " ready delivery contract " to mean " con tract for the purchase or sale of securities for per-formance of which no time is specified and which is to be performed immediately or within reasonable .time". It was also stated therein by way of explana-tion that what was reasonable time was in each parti-cular case question of fact. This Act did not achieve its purpose, for under s. 6 thereof contracts entered into in contravention of the provisions of that section were not made illegal but only void, with the result that even members of stock exchange not recognised under that Act were able to do business in that line. What. is more, the explanation to the definition of "ready delivery contract" which is excluded from the operation of the Act was so elastic that in the name of ready deli very contracts unrecognised stock ex-changes and individuals were able to carry on busi-ness in forwa:rd contracts. Gambling in shares went on unchecked in Bombay as elsewhere. After the Second World vVar, the post--war boom gave an un-healthy impetus tO the stock exchange transactions. Various expert committees appointed by the Govern-ment from time to time considered .the question of regulation of stock exchanges and the latest of those committees was the Gorwalla Committee. 'JJhe report of that Committee was circulated to the principal stock, exchanges, Chambers of Commerce, and other interest-ed associations and individuals. After considering the reports of the committees . and the comments made thereon by the various bodies, the Government intro-duced biil in the Parliament, which became law on

matha/al Gandhi

September 4, 1956. The Act wa.s passed to prevent

undesirable transactions in securities by regulating the Am~~~:~~;,,;,:'.,d,., business t~er~in by prohibiting auction a.nd by provid-v. ing for certam other matters connected therewith. The u,,;,,, of The Act mainly provides for the recognition of stock 1 .. J,a exchanges and for controlling the rule-ma.king of the sa.id exchanges. Section 4 of the Act empowers the Subba Rao J. Central Government to recognise stock exchanges subject to two conditions. Section 13 enables it to issue notification that in a. pa.rticula.r State or area every contra.ct which is entered into after the date of the notification otherwise than between members of recognised stock exchange in such State or 1irea or through or with such member shall be illega.1. Without resorting to such drastic procedure the Government is a.lso given power to prohibit e,ontracts in certain securities in certain areas from doing business without obtaining licence. Spot deli very contracts arc excluded· from the operation of ss. 13, 14, 15 and 17 of the Act, unless the Central Government by notifica-tion thinks fit to extend the operation of s. 17 of the Act to such contracts. Section 19 prohibits formation of stock exchanges other than recognised ones except with the permission of the Central Government. It declares all auctions in securities entered into after the commencement of the Act illega.l. It aiso provides penalties for the infringements of tho provisions of the Act. In short, the Act confers an effective controlling power on the Central Government over the stock exchanges.

In exercise of the power conferred upon the Central Government to make rules, tho Centre.I Government made rules described as the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Rules, 1957, providing, inter alia, for the qualification for membership of stock exchange seek-ing recognition, the procedure for recognition, the manner of keeping accounts, the submission of a.nnua.l reports, the constitution of governing bodies and for taking disciplinary action age.inst any member of such bodies and other similar matters.

·In Greater Bombay there were two stock exchanges,

one called the Native Share & Stock Brokers' Associa-I9[60 ]tion~ and the other the . Ind~an Stock Exchange .w adhabhai Limited. The former was m existence for more than Aniathalal Gandhi 80 years and it was registered under the Bombay v. Securities Contracts Control Act, 1925. Its rules and The Union of bye-laws were approved by the Government of Born-India bay and it was doing business in both forward as well as rea y transactions. • I t as earing ouse J • an Sttbba Rao ]. was doing extensive business in different kinds of securities.

The other, namely, the Indian Stock Exchange Limited, was company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1913,. as company limited by guarantee without any share capital. The said Com-pany had been functioning since 1937, but was not registered under the Bombay Securities Contracts Control Act, 1925. It was mainly doing business in Tata Ordinary and Bombay Dyeing shares and had hardly any investment business. Not being registered under the Bombay Securities Contracts Control Act, 1925, it could only deal in ready delivery contracts; and as .the definition of "ready delivery contract" under that Act was elastic and as forward contracts were not made illegal thereunder, this Exchange was also doing speculative business mainly in the said two shares.After the Act came into force, both the Exchanges applied for recognition under the Act. The Govern-ment, after considering the relative merits and the relevant circumstances, issued notification dated August 31, 1957, recognising the Native Share and Stock Brokers' Association under the name " The Stock Exchange, Bombay" subject to the conditions men-tioned therein. One of the conditions imposed was that the members of the Indian Stock Exchange Limited would be entitled to apply for membership of the Stock Exchange, Bombay, provided they were active members of the Indian Stock Exchange Limited for 12 months immediately preceding August 6, 1957, and they were also eligible under r. 8(1) of the Securi-ties Contracts (Regulation) Rules, 1957, to be mem-bers of rncognised stock exchange. The notification

1 ?~ 0 further gave some concessions to such act.i vc momhors . . in the matter of payment of the membership fee. Madhuohn• Th 1 f' be h' f' 0 15 AriiatJinlal Ctoidlu ey to a.pp .V or mom rs ip ore cto er , v. 1957, or before such period as the Boa.rd of the rocognis-Thr l'•'o" of ed Stock ExDha.nge might think fit tp extend. It appe-l•di• ars that within the extended timCY number of active members of the Indian St,ock Exchange Limited as 5 "bb• Rao J. defined by tho notification a.ppli<).~ for lll('mlJership and were admitted as mem hers ;Jif. the recognised Stock Exchange. Though three ~·ears have ·passed by, no member other than the petitioner has so fa.r thought fit to question the va.lidity·of the notification, that is, the validity of the· notification has been accepted and the recognised Stock Exchange bas become stabilised on that ha.sis. Subsequent to the . filing of the petition on November 30, 1957, the Central Government issued another notification apply-ing s. 13 of the Act to Greater Bombay; wit.h the result that thereafter every contract iri shares between the members of a.n.v unrecognised stock excha.nge in that City would be illegal.

The p!'titionor had become m~mber of the Indian Stock Exchange Limited on February 27, 1956, hut he had not been tmnsacting any business on the tlo0r of .. _. the S<~id Stock Exchange either on his own account or on account of his clients. He aver; in the affidavit filed in support of the petition that he has been doing considcrablo business on bis own account or. on account of his clients through other member< of the Stock Exchange and that he intends to commenl'e business directly in ready delivery contracts. A~ the impugned notifications affect his right to do business, he seeks for the issue of writ of mandamus for the aforesaid reliefs.

Shri Purshotta.m TrikumdaA, learned counsel for· the petitioner, ra.i~<.'d before UR the following conten-tions: (1) under Art. l9(1)(g) of the Constitution the petitioner has fundamental right to carry on the busincAs in shares and the notification dated August 31, 1957, and the subsequent notification dated Nonmber 30, 1957, imposed unreasonable restrictions on his said right; (2) the notification dated August 31,

1957, is void inasmuch as it is not sanctioned by the

provisions of s. 4 of the Act ; and (3) the condition M dh bh . 2(i)(a) of the said notification classifying members of Amath:i.7 c:'ndhi the Indian Stock Exchange Limited as active mem-v .. hers and members who were not active infringes the Tl« Union of fundamental right enshrined in Art. 14 of the Consti-India tution and that as the said condition is not severable the entire notification is bad. Subba Ra9 J.

Learned Solicitor-General in addition to contro-verting the said contentions pressed on us to hold that as the vfres of the Act was not questioned, the notifi-cation issued thereunder could not be questioned by the petitioner on the ground that it contravened one or other of the said fundamental rights.

It would be convenient to take first the contention of the learned Solicitor-General as it is in the nature of preliminary point. He says that as the validity of the Act was not questioned the notification issued in the exercise of the power conferred thereunder cannot also be questioned. There is fallacy underlying this contention. Under Art. 13(2) of the Constitution, · the Stat!e shall not make any law which takes away or abridges the rights conferred by Part III thereof; and "law" is defined under Art. 3(a) to include notifica-tion. Therefore, the validity of notification issued by the State, it being law, is as much vulnerable to attack as that of the Act itself on the ground that it' infringes any of the funditmental rights. If an Act is self-contained one and the notification issued there-under only restates the provisions of the Act, the vali-dity of the notification cannot obviously be questioned as the validity of its contents were accepted. But if the Act confers power on the State in general terms and the notification issued thereunder infringes one or other of the fundamental rights, the validity of the Act cannot equally obviously prevent an attack on the notification. In the former case . the notification only reflects the provinions of valid Act and in the latter it is the notification and not the Aot that infrin-ges the fundamental rights. Take an example of an Act imposing restrictic.ns on the freedom of speech. The Aot authorizes the, State to impose conditions on

/ 160 9Madlmbha• "· Union India

1960 the said freedom in the interests of security of State. Madlmbha• 1:he :'-ct is constitutionally valid .. But, if notifica-Amal/rn/al Gandf;i t10n issuer! under that Act imposes unreasonable rest-"· rictions infringing the said rights, it is liable to be Tiu Union of challenged on the ground of unconstitutionality. So India too, in the instant case s: 4 of the Act empowers the · S11hba Rao J Central Government to iBBue notification recognising · stock exchange subject to certain conditions express. ed in general terms. The general terms can compre-hend both reasonable and unreasonable restrictions. If the notification imposes unreasonable restrictions-if the contention of the learned counsel for the petition-er be accepted, the restrictions imposed would certain-ly be unreasonable-it is liable to be set a.side. We cannot, therefore, accept this contention .. Re. (l): Article 19(l)(g) of the Constitution states that every citizen shall have the right to carry on any business; but the State in empowered under cl. (6) of the said Article to make any law i!"posing in the interest of the gen>!ral public reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the. said right. Briefly stated, the argument is that the combined effect of the two noti-fications is that the petitioner is driven out of his business of stock exchange in as much as, it is said; they confer a. monopoly on the Stock Exchange, Bom-bay, and the rules of the said Stock Exchange exclude any outsider from becoming its member without obtaining nomination and that too only in the place of an existing member. To put it differently, the argument proceeds that under the rules of the Stock Exchange, Bombay, membership is not thrown open to the public. This leads us to. the consideration of , the relevant provisions of the Stock Exchange Rules, Bye-laws and Regulations, 1957. Under r. 3 the membership of the Exchange shall consist of such number of members as the Exchange in genoral meet-ing may from time to time determine. It is common case that the membership of the Exchange is not limited. U uder the heading " Election of I\ ew Mem-bers", the Rules prescribe the conditions of eligibili-ty for election as member of the Exchange. These Rules adopt the provisions of. r. 8 of the Securities

Contracts (Regulation) Rules, 1957. The Rules do z96o not contain any limitation on the eligibility of per-M ad 1 tu [bk ]ai [. ]son to be elected as member such as that the person Amathalal r;andhi should be nominated in the ma,nner provided by the v. Rules or that he should come only in the vacancy The Union of caused by another member ceasing to be one in one of India the ways mentioned thereunder. The words "no per-son m r. ,, . 17 are comprehensive enoug to ta k . em any Subba Rao ]. outsider seeking for election as member. Rule 22 provides for an application for admission in the form prescribed 'in Appendix to the Rules. This rule also does not impose any such limitation. The admis-sion application form in Appendix is also general in terms and enables any person of India to apply for membership provided he agrees to abide by the con-ditions imposed therein. In the form also there is no such limitation. But it is contended that fair read-ing of the provisions of rr. 20 and 21 makes it clear that candidate for admission is confined only to two ca,tegories, viz., (1) candidate nominated by mem-ber or legal representative of deceased member seeking admission to membership in the place of the deceased ; and (2) person recommended for admission to membership in the place of member who has forfeited his right to membership. careful scrutiny of the Rules does not bear out the contention ; nor do they enable us to cut down the wide amplitude of rr. 17 to 22. Rule 10 says:

" vVhen right of membership is forfeited to or

vests in the Exchange under any Rule, Bye-law, or Regulation of the Exchange for the time being in force it shall belong absolutely to the Exchange free of all rights, claims or interest of such member or any per-son claiming through such member and the Governing Body shall be entitled to deal with or dispose of such right of membership as it may think fit."

Rule 54 is to the following effect:

"A member's right of membership shall lapse to and vest in the Exchange immediately he is declared defaulter."

Rule 11 is as follows :

"(a) member of not less than seven years'

bh standing who desires to resign may nominate person Am Madhu tho/al Gandh• "' l" 1g1 "bl un or t ese R I u es .or ,. · · m1ss10n to mem be rs h" 1p • v. of the Exchange as candidate for admission in his

Thi Union of place.

(b) The !!'gal representatives of deceased mem-

India

ber or his heir8 or the persons mentioned in Appendix Swbb• Rao J. to these Rules may with the sanction of the Govern-ing Boa.rd nominate any person eligible under these Rules for admission to membership of the Exchange as candidate for admission in tho place of tho dec-eased member. In considering such nomination the Governing Board shall be guided so far as pra.ctica ble by the instructions Sl"t out in Appendix to these Rules." ·

Appendix gives the nomination forms Nos. I and 2 to be filled by member or legal representative, as the ca.so may be, under r. 11 (a) and (b). Now it would be convenient to read rr. 20 and 21. They are as follows:

Rule 20 : " candidate for admission except

candidate applying for membership vesting in the Exchange must obtain nomination in the manner provided in these Rules."

Rule 21: "A candidate for admission must be

recommended by two members none of whom should be member of the Governing Boa.rd. The rcoommen-ders must have such personal knowledge of the candi-date and of his past and present circumstances as shall satisfy the Governing Boa.rd."

The argument is that under r. 20 candidate for a.d-

miBBion fa.Us under two categories, namely, (l) candi-date who must obtain nomination in the manner provided in the Rules, i.e., r. ll (a) and (b); and (2) a. candidate applying for membership vesting in the Exchange; and, therefore, these two categories ex-haust the candidates for admission and that when under r. 21 the ea.me words, "a. candidate for admis-sion", a.re used they must carry the ea.me meaning as ·· in r. 20, that is, they must be confined only to the two oa.tegories comprehended by r. 20. This argument ap~ars to be plausible and even incontrovertible, if

rr. 20 and 21 are taken out of their setting and cons-

trued independently of other rules. But in the setting M dh bh . in which they appear they can bear only one meaning, Ama•h:la~ G:~dhi namely, that r. 20 provides for nomination only in v. the case of candidate for admission who requires Th• Union of nomination in the manner provided by the rule and India r. 21 provides, for all the candidates for admission, that they should be recommended by two members Subba Rao f. who have personal knowledge of the candidates. To put it in other words, under the Rules candidates for admission fall under three groups, viz., (l) candidates falling under r. II, (a) and (b); (2) candidates apply-ing for membership vesting in the Exchange; and (3) other candidates. All the three categories of candi-dates must be recommended by two members. But the candidates belonging to the first category shall in addition be nominated in the manner provided by the Rules. We, therefore, hold that the Stock Exchange Rules do not operate as bar against the petitioner becoming member of the Stock Exchange subject to the rules governing such application. The petitioner has the right to do business in shares : in spite of the notifications he can still do business in spot delivery contracts. He can apply to become member of the Stock Exchange subject to the conditions laid down by the Rules. The Act, the validity of which he has not chosen to question, enables the State to give or refuse recognition to any Stock Exchange and it has chosen to give recognition to the Stock Exchange, ·Bombay, subject to the conditions prescribed. The restric-tions, in our view, are not unreasonable, having regard to the importance of the business of stock exchange in the country's national economy and having regard to the magnitude of the mischief sought to be remedied in the interest of the general public. At another place we have already dealt with the necessity for stringent rules governing this type of business. For the reasons mentioned we reject the first contention.

Re. (2) : The second contention also has no merits. The criticism is that condition 2(i) (a) annexed to the notification cannot be supported on the basis of any

1y60 of the provisions of s. 4 of the Act. Condition 2 (i) reads as follow~: Amafluilal "'"d"""'"" <;a11d/i1 " 'I'h . . 111 em ers 0 t I d. n 1a.n I S toe k xc a.nge v. Limited, Bombay, will be entitled to apply for ~Icm-Th• u"''" ,,f bership of the Stock Exchange, Bombay, provided InJ1a they fulfil or comply with the following torms and conditions :-

Subba Nao _/.

(a) they have beon active members of the Indian

Stock Exchange Limited, for twelve months immedia-tely preceding the 6th August, 1957.

Explanation: ·"Active Members" for purpOHf' of this conditfon means members who have themselves transacted business regularly on tho floor of the Indian Stock Exchange Limited either on their own account or on account. of their clients.

To appreciate the argument it is also necessary to read the material pro\'ibions of"· 4 of the Act.

Section 4: "(1) If the Central Government is satis-fied, after making such inquiry as ma.y be necessary iu this bohalf and after obtaining such further in-formation, if any, as it may requirc,-

(a) that the rules and bye-laws of stock ex-

change applying for registration are in conformity with such conditions as may be prescribed with view to ensure fa.ir dealing and to protect investors;

(b) that the stock e:rnhange is willing to comply with any other conditions (including condition~ as t-0 the number ofmemhers) which the Central Govern-ment after consultation with the governing body of the stock exchange aud having regard to the aroa served by t.he AU>ck exchange and its standing and the nature of the securities dealt with by it, may impose for the purpose of carrying out the objects of this Act; and

(c) that it would be in the interest of the trade and also in the public interest to grant recognition to the stock exchange;

It may grant recognition tot.he stock exchange sub-j<'ct to the conditions imposed upon it as aforesaid and in such form as may be prescribed.

(2) The conditions which the Central Government

may prescribe under clause (a) of sub-section (1) for I96° the · 1 grant of recognition to the stock d" exchanges . J . may 1 O< 1 hubha< . ItlC u e, among ot er matters, con 1t1ons re at1ng Aniathalal Gandhi to,-v.

I96° 1 O< 1 hubha< . Aniathalal v. The Unwn of India

(i) the qualifications for membership of stock ex-

changes;

(ii) the manner in which contracts shall be enter-

Subba Rao ].

en orce

re into an en orce as between members;

(iii) the representation of the Central Government

on each of the stock exchanges by such number of per-sons not exceeding three as the Central Government may nomina.te in this behalf; and

(iv) the maintenance of accounts of members and

their audit by chartered accountants when ever such audit is required by the Central Government. "

The argument proceeds that condition 2(i)(a) enables only the active members of the Indian Stock Ex-change Limited to apply for membership of the Stock Exchange, Bombay and that such conditfon can be imposed only if it amounts to qualification of mem-bership within the meaning of sub-s. (2) of s. 4, as the other conditions in that sub-section are obviously in-applicable. It is further pointed out that sub-s. (2) refers back to sub-s. (i)(a) and under that clause the condition imposed must only be that prescribed by the Rules made under the Act and that the condition im-posed by the notification is not condition so pres-cribed. There is force in this argument; but, the acceptauce of this contention does not advance the case of the petitioner, for, if the condition is not cover-ed by cl. (a) of s. 4(1), it falls under cl. (b) thereof. Under that clause, the Central Government may grant recognition to stock exchange if the said stock ex-change is willing to comply with "any other condi-tions". It is said that the other conditions in s. 4 (l)(b) must only be conditions relating to the area served by the stock exchange, its standing and the nature of the securities dealt with by it. This is not what cl. (b) of s. 4(1) says. The conditions under cl. (b) of s. 4(1) no doubt shall he such as may be impose<l by the Government, having regard to the aforesaid three consi<lerations, but they need not necessarily be

1 960 confined only to the said considerations. The Govern-Am~/},:11 -;;; 1 ~;"~:;,dh• 1 , to ment the may recognition of stock exchange, impose a.ny conditions, no doubt after consulta-germane v. tion with its governing boa.rd, and having regard to The 1:,,;o., of the said considerations. It cannot be said that con-1"drn dition 2(i)(a) imposed on the St-0ck Exchange is not Sflll,a Rao J condition germane to its recognition. The record · discloses that the Central Government in recognising the Stock Exchange sought to avoid the consequential J hardship on the members of the rival stock exohange and therefore imposed the said condition on tho Stock Exchange, Bombay, as condition for its recognition. The condition is germane to recognition of the Stock l<;xchangc and is, therefore, condition within the meaning of "any other conditions" in cl. (b) of sub-s. (I) of s. 4 of tho Act.

Re. (3): Learned counsel for the petitioner advanced

forcible argument questioning the validity of con-dition 2(i)(a) of the notification on the ground that it infringed Art. 14 of the Constitution. Elaborating his argument, tho learned counsel stated that the said condition classified members of the Indian Stock Ex-change Limited into two groups, one active members and the other who were not active members, and that that olassification was arbitrary and had no reason-able relation to the object sought t-0 be achieved by the notification. He fort her pointed out that the defining of active members as those who had themselves trans-11.cted business regularly on the floor of the Indian Stock Exchange Limited either on their own account or on account of their clients for 12 months immedi-ately preceding August 6, 1957, was not only arbitrary a.nd vague but also, if analysed, would lead t-0 anoma-lies destructive of any standard of reasonableness. It is alleged in the affidavit filed by the petitioner that from the inception of the Indian Stock Exchange Limited, l!l!l members of the said Stock Exchange were actually trading on the floor of the said Exchange' from time to time but for some reason or the other were not trading during the period of 12 months immediately preceding August 6, 1957; that there were 34 mem-bers of the said Stock Exchange who were reguliuly

transacting business on the floor of the said Stock I960 Exchange prior to August 6, 1956, and for some time after August 6, 1956, but not during the entire period Ani;~;.~:~b~:~dhi of 12 months from August 6, 1956 to August 6, 1957; v. and that there were 24 members of the said Stock The Unfon of Exchange who started transacting business regularly India on the floor of the said Stock Exchange some time after August 6, 1956 ansJ. continued to transact busi-Subba. Rao J. ness right upto and after August 6, 1957. It was asked what was the reasonable basis for confining the definition of active · members to those who were carrying orr business during the period of 12 months from August 6, 1956 to August 6, 1957, while exclud-ing the aforesaid thre~ categories who were equally active members and indeed more active than those included in the definition. It was further asked what was the justification for excluding a. member who was an active member for yea.rs before the crucial year and irregularly conducted business on the floor of the Stock Exchange during the crucial year while includ-ing member who might have been newcomer or who might have been earlier nominal member but began to do business regularly only during the said · year. Emphasis was also laid upon the alleged elastic · and indefinite content of the word " regular " and it was suggested that the said word could not possibly afford precise standard. These are all weighty con-siderations and we must confess that there is force in them. But there is the other side of the picture. It is well-settled that classification must have reason-able relation to the object sought to be achieved. The standard of reasonableness is inextricably conditioned by the extent and nature of the evil and the urgency for eradicating the same. The object of the notifica-tion is twofold. The main object is to carry out the -purpdse of the Act, namely, to prevent undesirable transactions in securities by regulating the business in them. The subsidiary object is to assuage the hardship that .recognition of only one stock exchange would cause to the members of the other association. Te achieve this twin objeot the classification is ma.do !.et. ween active members and inactive members. Whilei96u on the one. hand the Government found it necessary to . . exclude the nominal members who would add their Am~:":;~~~~i!-~<.:1;ut1n dead\\·cigl.it. to the recognised associatiou and bring v. down it.8 efficiency and affect its di:iciplined conduct nc c"'"" of of business, on the other hand it ga>c opportunity to Indw persons who were actively iuterested in the business to b"come regular members of the Stock Exchange, S•thba Ua(l · · I 13 om ay. 'l'h ere is · every JUHt1!wat.zon · · ... · 1· or exc.u< ing 1 J members who had not. beeu taking active interest. in the business, for, as we have already pointed out, the efficient carrying out of the business of the Stock Exchange depends upon the moral stature, high calibre, and genuine and active internst evinced by the members. The active members justified themselves to the preferential treatment by their sustained llltercst in the business whereas the membns who were not acti\·e showed their continued indifference to th.i.t line of business. But the crux of the question i8, what. is the justification for fixing twelve months immcuw.tely preceding August. (i, I957, as the standard for active membership? The Under Secretary to the Govern-ment of India, Ministry of Finance, filed an affidavit describing the circumstances whereunder this classifi. cation wa8 made. It discloses that the ·notification was issued after taking into consideration the r"pre. sentations made on behalf of both the Sl-0ck Ex· changes and also the facts pertaining to the course of business conducted by the Indian St.ock Exchange Limited. It also gives the vicissitudes through '-';hich the said Stock Exchange passed from the date of its formation and the circumstance8 under which the membership of that Exchange was divided into full members and associate membern. It points out that the Indian Stock Exchange Limited became moribund in few v<>ars and to revive its activities it allowed the mcmbe.rs of the East India Chamber of Commerce, by relaxing it.s entrance fee and· security de posit requirements in l!l50.5l and created new class of Associate J\Iembcrs, which facilitated tho enrolment of hundreds of Associate Membcr8 on payment of & nominal entrance fee ·of Its. 100. The Governmont on consideration of the necessary data and presumably

having regard' to the record of the activities of the r96o various members fixed the activities in the crucial year· l956-57 as the standard of activity for member- Am::,,:~:~b~::dhi ship. . . v.

v. India

. . There is. presumption in favour of the State that The Union of· · there is reasonable basis for the classification. · India _Except the mere allegations in the affidavit which are not admitted, the petitioner has not placed before us Subba Rao·]: . any materials to ascertain that any .other members,;. who were regularly doing business on the floor · of the. · Indian Stock Exchange Limited before August 6, 1956, temporarily suspend~d their business for one reason or other over which they had no control. No statement from the accounts has been produced ·to enable us to evaluate the activities of the members before the cr.ucial date so a.s to enable us to form view ,that really active members. were excluded by the fixing of this period. Nor are we in position to verify w he-ther any of the members excluded were regularly doing business duri_ng part of the year in continua-tion of their business in the earlier period~ We cannot also say that the words "carrying on business regu,-larly " are so vague that the parties did not under-stand their connotation, for it is admitted that some of the regular members applied for membership of the Stock Exchange, Bombay and most of them were admitted; There is also the "fact that though ~hree years hl!-ve elapsed since the date of the notification no· other member ef th!J Indian Stock Exchange· Limited thought fit to question the notification on the ground that the period fixed was unreasonable and that really active members were excluded f(om membership of .the Stock Exchange, Bombay. So far as the petitioner · is concerned, he was admittedly not an active member, though he now pretends that he. was doing business through other .members. There is also no ma.tee rial-placed before us to support the said assertion. If the ·classification, between'active members and others who were,not, is justifiable-we hold it is..:...th~ ·Government has to draw line somewhere and to fix period of activity reasonable in its opinion as

'960 standard to satisfy the test of" active member". The burden which lies upon the petitio1wr who impoaches 111a11a M;ad1"1""Ghai cui dh t the • validity of the classification to show • . that it v. violates tho guarantee of equal protcctwn has not been n, Fua,;u of discharged. On the material placed before us we can-IHd•a not say that the p<'riod fixed by the Govornme111. as the standard fur ascertaining tho active mcmberohip Suil,a Rao J · is ar b. 1trary or·unn•asOIHL bl e. ur n must ma it k 1 ear that this finding must be confined only to tho validity of the impugned uotification dated August 31, 1956. The petition accordingly fails and is di"sruissed with costs.

Petition dismissed.

August 17.

:\1/S. ZORASTER AKD CO.

THE CO:\IMISSlONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI, AJMEH, RAJASTHAN A~D BHARAT (NOW) MADHYA PltADESH.

A~D MADHYA

(S. K. DAs, M. HrnAYATULLAn AND .r. C. SHAII, JJ.)

Income-lax -Reference -- l'cr.vcr of High Courl tu call for supplemental stalemetit of case-·- Indian Jnco~-tax Act, 1922 (I I of 1922), S. 66(4).

The appellant entered into contract with Government for the supply of goods, and in the assessment year 1942-43 Rs. 10.~0.653 and in the assessment year 1943-44. Rs. 17.4),336 were assessed as its income by the lnco1ne-tax Officer. 1'hc sup-plies to Govcrnn1ent were made f. o. r. Jaipur by the appellant, and payment \\'as by cheques \vhich \\'ere received at Jaipur. The contention of the appellant v.·as that this income \\'as received at Jaipur outside the then taxable territories. l'his contention was not accepted by the Income-tax Appellate Tri-bunal, Delhi. The appellant then applied for reference to the High Court under s. 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, and by its order dated December 10, 1952, the Tribunal referred the following question for the decision of the High Court.