Justice Dinshah Pirsha Madon, was born on 7th April, 1921. He completed his education from Imperial High School, Bombay, Sardar Dastur Noshirwan High School, Poona and later further education from Elphinstone College, Bombay and Government Law College, Bombay. His Lordship enrolled as an advocate at the Supreme Court on May 31, 1952, the Appellate Side of the High Court in Bombay on November 21, 1944, and the Original Side on November 2, 1945, mostly on the Bombay High Court’s Original Side. Additionally, he appeared before the Bombay High Court’s appellate division, as well as the Supreme Court of India, the Court of Appeals for East Africa in Nairobi, and the Supreme Court of Aden.
His lordship mostly attended to Civil and Constitutional matters and some Taxation and Criminal matters. From 1952 to 1955, he taught law at the Government Law College in Bombay on a part-time basis. On September 25, 1967, he was named an Additional Judge of the High Court at Bombay. On August 6, 1969, a permanent judge was appointed. On August 11, 1982, he was named acting chief justice of the Bombay High Court, and on August 31, he was named chief justice. On March 15, 1983, he was appointed judge of the Supreme Court. Mr. D.P. Madon retried on April 7th, 1986.
Justice Dinshah Pirsha Madon also headed a Commission formed by the Indian government to inquire into the Communal Disturbances at Bhiwandi, Jalgaon and Mahad of 1970. A prolonged tension was going on between Hindu nationalist groups such as the “RSS, Jana Sangh and Shiv Sena and the Muslim radical groups Jamaat-i-Islami, the Muslim League and Majlis Tameer-e-Millat.” A permission was given by The Rashtriya Utsav Mandal to Shiv Sena and other right wingers to have a procession to honour the birthday of Maratha warrior-King Shivaji that would travel by a mosque and through a neighbourhood with a large Muslim population. Despite the complaints of Muslim leaders, permission was granted, and the march started on May 7. It was reported that these right wingers were accompanied by lathis. Between 3,000 to 4,000 people were a part of this procession and while they were travelling close to Bhiwandi, some muslims started pelting stones which triggered the violence. Once the violence began, police opened fire but only Muslims were targeted. Curfew was imposed in the area and nearby areas. Acids bulbs and knives were openly used as reported by the Indian express. Indian Army was also called to control the situation.
According to the Report by Justice DP Madon: The riot was not exactly started by the simplistic reaction of the procession being attacked by a group of Muslims. The practise of publicly commemorating Shiv Jayanti was initiated in 1964, not during the Shiv Jayanti celebrations of that year, and since then, tensions have risen on an annual basis. This practice is believed to be rise in communalism in the Bhiwandi indirectly. The organisers are also known to raise proactive slogans against the Muslims since the first year of this public procession revealing the true intent of the event. The police have also tried to make attempts to convince the organisers to not to incite violence by avoiding Muslim dominated areas while going through their procession, to not to throw gulal (colour) at the mosques nor shouting incendiary slogans.
In Justice DP Madon’s report to his superiors, the SP, Thane district, Justice Madon has stated that he has found sections of Hindu elements particularly the RSS and some PSP men were mostly responsible for the mischief caused. Their intention in doing so was not really to honour the Great Shivaji as it was to assert their right and, if possible, to irritate and degrade Muslims. The Rashtriya Utsav Mandal, a branch of the Jana Sangh, and the SS mobilised villagers to participate in the Shiv Jayanti procession in Bhiwandi for the first time in 1970. The goal of these organisations in bringing villagers to participate was “to intimidate the Muslims,” and the participants carried lathis to which bhagwa (saffron) flags were attached. With the assistance of a nonchalant police, the locals screamed provocative anti-Muslim slurs, behaved violently, and flung gulal at the Hyderi mosque at the intersection of Dargah Road and Sutar Galli and the Moti Masjid near Bangad Galli. This all was stated in the report Justice DP Madon.
Some judgements by Justice DP Madon-
“Union of India and Another and Tulasiram Patel” is an important landmark judgement relating to Article 311 (2) (b) of the Constitution and relating to domestic enquiry. In the said case, SC has said that a government servant can be dismissed or removed from service without holding an enquiry under Art. 311 (2) (b) of the Constitution provided it was in the interest of the public. According to Art. 311 (2) (b), “when the authority empowered to dismiss or remove a person or to reduce him in rank ins satisfied that for some reason, to be recorded by that authority in writing, it is not reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry.”In this case, court has held that, “Government Servants who are inefficient, dishonest, corrupt or have become a security danger should not continue in service and should be swiftly dismissed or removed from it instead of being allowed to continue in it at public expense and to the detriment of the public”. Referring to Article 311 (2) (b), the court has pointed out by not taking any action against these government servants, the situation can worsen and it is unreasonable to hold an enquiry in cases involving violence, where the govt. servant threatens or terrorises the disciplinary authority or the witnesses in order to prevent them from taking an action against him. Justice Madon along with other judges overruled the judgement of three judge bench of the Supreme Court in In Challappan’s Case, it was decided that a delinquent government employee could only be fired or removed from his position after being given a chance to be heard. The judges ruled that it would be preferable if the disciplinary authority explained to the government servant why the probe should not proceed. The Court moreover noted that the agreed-to provision regarding no inquiries in particular cases was Mandatory and not Directory.
In “Kumari Suneeta Ramchandra Vs. State of Maharashtra & ANR”, The father of the appellant, a member of the Central Government, was relocated from Nagpur in the State of Maharashtra to Hyderabad in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The appellant had successfully completed the SSC exam in Andhra Pradesh. She completed the HSC (XII Standard) Exam in Nagpur, one of the requirements for admission to the state of Maharashtra’s medical colleges. She applied for admission to the MBBS programme at the Nagpur Medical College in accordance with Rule C6 (ii) of the Medical Colleges of the Government of Maharashtra Rules for Admissions, 1985-86, which, among other things, states that the maximum number of children of Central Government Servants admitted with certain concessions in all Government Medical Colleges shall not exceed two. Despite coming in third on the combined merit list, the appellant was denied admission on the grounds that only two seats were available for applicants who qualified under Rule C6(ii). A writ petition under Article 226 that was filed by the appellant was denied. The appellant argued in the appeal before this court that each Government Medical College will have a total of two seats available for admission of applicants falling under Rule C-6 (ii). According to the argument made on behalf of the respondents, there are only two seats available in the State’s government medical colleges combined. Additionally, the Joint Director of Education and Research in Bombay, rather than the Dean, is responsible for selecting applicants who fall into this category for admission from a common merit list. The court allowed the appeal and held that “the total number of such children of Central Government servants to be admitted with this concession shall not exceed two in all Government Medical Colleges” does not necessarily mean that the total number of such children of Central Government servants admitted with this concession shall not exceed two in all Government Medical Colleges combined. It means that all Government Medical Colleges, i.e., every single Government Medical College, will admit children of Central Government employees who fall into the category described in Rule C6(ii), up to a maximum of two children, providing they meet the requirements outlined in Rule C. (3). According to court, If the two seats for this category were to be for all the Government medical colleges combined in the State of Maharashtra, the statement “at the respective medical institutions” would have no significance. The court also held that it is the Dean who is entrusted with the work of admission not Joint director and rule does not and this regulation cannot conceivably be applied if just two applicants who fit the criteria outlined in Rule C (6)(ii) are accepted into each of the State’s Government Medical Colleges collectively. The court dropped the words ‘taken together’ from the rules. The goal was to give children of Central Government Servants transferred to the State of Maharashtra from outside the State two seats in each Government Medical College. Such a purpose is supported by logical arguments. At the end the appellant was able to secure the seat as she fulfilled all other criteria.
- Official website of High Court of Bombay, https://bombayhighcourt.nic.in/jshowpuisne.php?bhcpar=amdldGlkPTE2NiZwYWdlbm89OQ==
- The Sangh’s bloody trail, sabrang, (1 Aug, 2004), https://sabrangindia.in/tags/justice-dp-madon-commission-inquiry-communal-disturbances-bhiwandi
- Union Of India And Another vs Tulsiram Patel And Others 1985 AIR 1416, 1985 SCR Supl. (2) 131
- Kumari Suneeta Ramchandra vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr 1986 AIR 1552, 1986 SCR (1) 697
I have always been against Glorifying Over Work and therefore, in the year 2021, I have decided to launch this campaign “Balancing Life”and talk about this wrong practice, that we have been following since last few years. I will be talking to and interviewing around 1 lakh people in the coming 2021 and publish their interview regarding their opinion on glamourising Over Work.
IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN PARTICIPATING IN THE SAME, DO LET ME KNOW.
The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.
If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems at firstname.lastname@example.org