Laishram and Manohar Lal victory and the injustice to 10323 terminated teachers in Tripura
Adv. Amritlal Saha
March 25, 2026
Key highlights of these two rulings are directly applicable to the illegally terminated 10323 teachers in Tripura State.
• The Impleadment Gap: Only 462 teachers were actually impleaded in the original case against the 10,323, yet the State terminated the entire lot by a single, omnibus order. This en masse termination is both illegal and unconstitutional.
• Article 21 Precedent: While the Tripura teachers face total termination, the Calcutta High Court protected the jobs of 32,000 teachers—even in cases where recruitment corruption was proven—by invoking the fundamental Right to Life under Article 21.
• The Manohar Lal Ruling (March 12, 2026): This is their newest and most potent weapon from the Supreme Court. It mandates that Constitutional Courts must independently verify if the "reasons recorded" for dispensing with an inquiry are based on objective material rather than mere presumption.
• The Laishram Victory: Affirmed by the Supreme Court, this case establishes that Article 311(2) protections are a constitutional obligation that cannot be bypassed using vague, internally generated reports or FIRs.
• Hostile Discrimination: Former Chief Justice Aquil Qureshi previously invoked Paragraph 127 to protect the jobs of four science teachers recruited in 2012, proving that the State's refusal to honor that same protection for the 10,323 cohort is a targeted act of discrimination.
These points directly address the "unanswered questions" that the Single Bench failed to consider when it dismissed your previous petitions with costs.
• Objective Threshold for Article 311(2)(b): The Supreme Court held that dismissing a public servant without an inquiry under the second proviso to Article 311(2) demands concrete material, not just a "reasonable apprehension" or presumption of witness intimidation.
• Independent Judicial Assessment: The ruling established that Constitutional Courts cannot sustain a termination merely because a tribunal (like the CAT) upheld the disciplinary authority's reasons. Instead, the court must independently verify if the recorded reasons satisfy the constitutional standard of "impracticability".
• Presumption vs. Proof: In the case of manoharlal (2026), the court found the Assistant Commissioner's report was based on presumption rather than evidence, leading it to quash the dismissal and order reinstatement with 50% back wages and continuity of service.
• Non-Substitution for Regular Inquiry: The court reiterated that Article 311(2)(b) is not a parallel disciplinary route or a "short-cut" around natural justice; it is an exception that is strictly triggered only when an inquiry is genuinely not reasonably practicable based on objective facts.
These two judgments serve as a powerful precedent for the teachers of Tripura that the mass termination of 10,323 teachers without individual, material-backed reasons for dispensing with an inquiry is a violation of constitutional safeguards.
The toll of this "horrendous tragedy" has now reached over 200 lives lost to disease and despair. Commitment to securing their constitutional rights is essential to addressing the "irremediable civil consequences" faced by thousands of households.
Article 311 of the Constitution mandates that No person who is a member of a civil service of shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank except after an inquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges; Provided further that this clause shall not apply-- (a)where a person is dismissed or removed or reduced in rank on the ground of conduct which has led to hi s conviction on a criminal charge; or (b)where the authority empowered to dismiss or remove a person or to reduce him in rank is satisfied that for some reason, to be recorded by that authority in writing, it is not reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry; or (c)where the President or the Governor, as the case may be, is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State, it is not expedient to hold such inquiry.
Terminating Officers do not claim that this article applies to the terminated teachers of Tripura.
Laishram amd Manoharlal judgments reassure that executive authority is not final. Executive action to terminate any Government employees must be as per provision of the Article 311 (2) . In Tanmoy Nath judgment the terminated teachers were not convicted in any criminal case. Hence all the 10323 teachers including the impleaded 462 teachers are entitled to get protection of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution. The erring officials are not punished in our Indian system. Our judicial institutions are empowered to look into this aspect and may consider to rectify the errors and also impose punitive cost to bring a change in the attitude of the executive authorities to prevent violation of fundamental rights of the citizens of India.
By Adv Amrit Lal Saha, is a practicing advocate in the High Court of Tripura. He is accessible at: [email protected] (Tripurainfo)
more articles...