Onkar Nath & Ors. v. The Delhi Administration AIR 1977 SC 1108

ONKAR NATH & ORS. V. THE DELHI ADMINISTRATION

Whether the lower courts were justified in considering specific facts without needing formal evidence?

Under Section 57 of the Evidence Act, courts can take judicial notice of widely known facts without requiring formal proof.
This allows the judicial system to recognize and rely on facts of public knowledge—such as notable events—without evidence, thereby ensuring efficiency and preventing undue formalism in the judicial process.

The appellants were leaders of the Northern Railwaymen’s Union, and on May 5, 1974, a speech was made at a meeting, inciting workers to go on strike from May 8th.
Under Rule 118(1) of Defense of India Rules, 1971, the Central Government had previously issued an order on November 26, 1973, prohibiting strikes connected to industrial disputes within railway services. This prohibition aimed to maintain essential supplies and services for public welfare.
The government accused the appellants of violating this rule by inciting a strike tied to an industrial dispute.
They were convicted by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate and sentenced to six months of rigorous imprisonment.
The order of conviction was upheld in appeal by the sessions court, but in revision, the Delhi High Court reduced the sentence to the period already undergone.
On appeal to this Court, the appellants contended that the courts below were not justified in taking judicial notice that on the date they delivered their speeches, a railway strike was ready to take place, but such a strike was launched on May 8th, 1974.

The Court held that lower courts correctly took judicial notice of the imminent strike on May 5 and the actual strike on May 8, given its significant impact on public life.
To convict under Rule 118(1), the prosecution needed to establish that the strike was related to an industrial dispute. The Court found no sufficient evidence that the alleged incitement was tied to an industrial dispute, as required under the rule.
The only prosecution witness, Jasbir Singh, provided a general summary of the alleged incitement rather than quoting specific statements. The Court ruled that the prosecution’s reliance on summaries, without specific statements, was inadequate for conviction.
The court clarified that the rule restricts government orders to strikes connected to industrial disputes. Strikes without such connections fall outside the rule’s purview.
Based on these findings, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, overturning the conviction and acquitting the appellants.