Delhi Police Non-Gazetted Karmchari
Sangh & Ors Vs. Union of India & Ors [1986] INSC 245 (20 November 1986)
KHALID, V. (J) KHALID, V. (J) OZA, G.L. (J)
CITATION: 1987 AIR 379 1987 SCR (1) 347 1987
SCC (1) 115 JT 1986 920 1986 SCALE (2)872
ACT:
Constitution of India, 1950, Article 19(1)(c)
and 33--Right to form an association by the members of the Police
force--Non-gazetted Karmachari Sangh was granted recognition on 12.12.1986
after the coming into effect of the Police Forces (Restriction of Rights) Act No.
33 of 1966--The Police Forces (Restriction of Rights) Rules 1966 were made on
the same date which was amended by Amendment Rules, 1970-The Association was de
recognised in terms of Rule 11 of the Amended Rules by circular dated
1.4.1971--Whether the Act, the Rules as amended and the circular dated 1.4.1971
are ultra vires the Constitution and opposed to Article 19(1)(c).
HEADNOTE:
The non-gazetted members of the Delhi police
Force wanted to form an association of their own and for that purpose constituted
the Karmachari Union in 1966 and applied for its registration under the Trade
Union Act, 1926 and this was refused. After the coming into effect from
2.12.1966 of the Police Force (Restriction of Rights) Act, 33 of 1966 another,
application for recognition was again made on 9.12.1966 which was granted on
12.12.1966. The nongazetted members of the Delhi Police Force were permitted to
become members of the Sangh. The Police Force (Restriction of Rights) Rules,
1966 made by the Central Government on 12.12.1966 were amended by the Amendment
Rules of 1970. Rule 11 thereof provides for revocation of the recognition granted
to an association, if the said associations articles are not in conformity with
the Rules or are not brought in conformity with the provisions of the amended
Rules within a period of 30 days. Since the Articles of Association of the
appellant Sangh contained a number of provisions not in conformity with the
rules and since the Sangh failed to bring the same in conformity, by a circular
dated 1.4.1971 the recognition granted was revoked. The appellants, therefore,
filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging the
constitutional validity of the Act, Rules and the impugned circular. The writ
petition having been rejected the appellants have come by way of special leave.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court, 348
HELD: 1.1 The Police Force (Restriction of
Rights) Act (33 of) 1966, the Police Force (Restriction of Rights) Rules 1966
(as amended by the 1970 Rules) and the circular dated 1.4.1971 are all
constitutionally valid. They do not offend the provisions of Articles 14 and
19(1)(c) of the Constitution. [350 C, 355 E-F] 1.2 The right under Article
19(1)(c) is not absolute.
Article 19(4) specifically empowers the State
to make any law to fetter, abridge or abrogate any of the fights under Article
19(1)(c) in the interest of public order and other considerations. While the
right to freedom of association is fundamental, recognition of such association
is not a fundamental fights and the Parliament can by law regulate the working
of such associations by imposing conditions and restrictions on such functions.
[355 E, 356 F]
1.3 The fundamental fights guaranteed by
Article 19(1)(c) can be claimed by Government servants. A government servant
may not lose his right by joining government service. Article 33 which confers
power on the Parliament to abridge or abrogate such rights in their application
to the Armed Forces and other similar forces shows that such fights are
available to all citizens, including government servants. What has happened in
this case is only to impose reasonable restrictions in the interest of
discipline and public order. [356 G-H]
1.4 Rule 11 read with Rule 3(c) of the
Amended Police Force (Restriction of Rights) Rules, 1966 has to be judged
keeping in mind the character of the employees to whom it applies. It is true
that the rules impose a restriction on the right to form association. It
virtually compels a government servant to withdraw his membership of the
association as soon as recognition accorded to the said association is
withdrawn or if, after the association is formed, no recognition is accorded to
it within six months. In other words, the right to form an association is
conditioned by the existence of the recognition of the said association by the
government. If the association obtains recognition and continues to enjoy it,
government servants can become members of the said association, if the said
association does not secure recognition from the government or recognition
granted to it is withdrawn, government servants must cease to be members of the
said association. That is the plain effect of the impugned role. These rules
are protected by Articles 33 and 19(4) of the Constitution. Besides, it is
settled law that the right guaranteed by Article 19(1)(c) to form associations
does not involve a guaranteed right to recognition also. [357 A-C]
1.5 Section 3 of the Police Force
(Restriction of Rights) Act permits the rule making authority to define any
group of Police Force that can form an Association. It also gives power to
prescribe the nature of activity that each such association of members can
indulge in. It, therefore, follows that if rules can be 349 framed defining
this aspect, a rule can also be framed enabling the authorities to revoke or
cancel recognition once accorded, if the activities offended the rules. Besides
the classification based on ranking has its own rationale behind it. The Court
is dealing with a Force in which discipline is the most important prerequisite.
Non-gazetted officers consist of men of all ranks; the lowest cadre and
officers who are superior to them. If all the non-gazetted officers are grouped
together irrespective of rank, it is bound to affect discipline. It was
perhaps, realising the need to preserve discipline that the changes in the rule
were effected. [357E, G ] Damyanti Naranga v. The Union of India & Ors.,
[1971] 3 SCR 840; Ous Kutilingal Achudan Nair & Ors., v. Union of India
& Ors., [1976] 2 SCR 769; and Raghubar Dayal Jai Prakash v. The Union of
India & Ors., [1962] 3 SCR 547 followed.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal
No. 222 (N) of 1973.
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.3.1972
of the Delhi High Court in Civil Writ No. 731 of 1971.
M.K. Dua, Aman Vachher and S.K. Mehta for the
Appellants.
B. Datta, Additional Solicitor General, G.D.
Gupta and Mr. C.V. Subba Rao for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
KHALID, J. 1. This appeal by certificate is directed against the Judgment of a
Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, in C.W. No. 731 of 1971. The prayer in
the Writ Petition is for the issuance of an appropriate writ, order or
direction declaring (a) the Police Forces (Restriction of Rights) Act No. 33 of
1966 (for short the Act) as ultra vires the Constitution, (b) the Police Forces
(Restriction of Rights) Rules 1966 and Police Forces (Restriction of Rights)
Amendment Rules, 1970 (for short the Rules) ultra vires of Act 33 of 1966 and
the Constitution of India, (c) that the Circular dated 1st April, 1971 as
invalid, illegal, ultra vires, null and void and (d) for a declaration that the
Delhi Police Non Gazetted Karmchari Sangh, petitioner No. 1 in the Writ
Petition, is a legally and validly constituted service organisation.
350
2. The first appellant is the Non-Gazetted
Karmachari Sangh (for short the 'Sangh') and the appellant Nos. 2 to 7, its
members. The High Court dismissed the petition holding that the challenge was
not sustainable and that neither the Act nor the Rules violated any provisions
of the Constitution.
The High Court dealt at length with the
preliminary objections that a challenge based on the violation of any
fundamental right was not permissible in view of the emergency declared by the
President of India, in December, 1977.
This need not detain us now in this Judgment.
3. The appellants' case is that the Act
referred above violates Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution of India and that
the restrictions imposed by it., being arbitrary, violates Article 14 of the
Constitution. The Non-Gazetted members of the Delhi Police Force wanted to form
an organisation of their own and for that purpose constituted the Karmachari
Union in 1966 and applied for its registration under the Trade Union Act, 1926.
Initially the registration asked for was declined. Then Act 33 of 1966 was
enacted. It came into force on 2nd December, 1966. An application for
recognition was again made on 9th December, 1966. Recognition was granted by
the Central Government on 12th December, 1966. The Non-Gazetted members of the
Delhi Police Force were permitted to become members of the Sangh. On 12th
December, 1966, the Central Government made rules under the Act which were
amended in December, 1970. The Circular in question was issued under these
rules. The Circular attempts to derecognise the Sangh. This occassioned the
filing of the writ petition.
4. Before considering the rival contentions
urged before us, it would be useful to refer to the salient features of the Act
to appreciate its ambit and the restrictions imposed by its provisions. The Act
was enacted to delineate the restrictions imposed of the rights conferred by
part III of the Constitution, in their application to the members of the forces
charged with the maintenance of public order so as to ensure the proper
discharge of their duties' and the maintenance of discipline among them. The
Parliament obviously has this power under Article 33 of the Constitution of
India.
The provisions of the Act seek to place
certain restrictions on members of the police force in exercise of their fundamental
rights guaranteed by Article 19(1)(c) to form Association or Unions. Section 3
of the Act reads as follows:
"3(1) No member of a police force shall
without the express sanction of the Central Government or of the prescribed
authority-(a)be a member of, or be associated in any way with, any trade union,
labour union, political association or with any class of trade unions, labour
unions or political 351 associations; or (b) be a member of, or be associated
in any way with, any other society, institution, association or organisation
that is not recognised as part of the force of which he is a member or is not
of a purely social, recretional or religious nature; or (c) communicate with
the press or publish or cause to be published any book, letter or other
document except where such communication or publication is in the bona fide
discharge of his duties or is of a purely literary, artistic or scientific
character or is of a prescribed nature.
Explanation: If any question arises as to
whether any society, institution, association or organisation is of a purely
social, recretional or religious nature under clause (b) of this subsection,
the decision of the Central Government thereon shall be final.
(2) No member of a police force shall participate
in or address, any meeting or take part in any demonstration organised by any
body of persons for any political purposes or for such other purposes as may be
prescribed." Section 4 of the Act provides for penalties if Section 3 is
contravened by any person. Section 5 gives power to the Central Government by
notification in the official gazette, to amend the schedule by including
therein any other enactment relating to a force charged with the maintenance of
public order or omit therefrom any enactment already specified therein. Section
6 gives the rule making power to the Central Government.
5. The only contention that now survives is
whether the impugned statute, rules and orders are violative of the fights of
the appellants guaranteed under Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution of India.
This appeal could be disposed of by a short Order. Appellants No. 2 to 7 are no
longer in service. They have been dismissed. As such they do not have the
necessary locus standi to sustain this petition. But the appellants' counsel
submitted that the first petitioner--the Sangh, was still interested in
pursuing this appeal and that persuaded us to hear the appeal on merits.
6. It is true that recognition was given to
the Sangh originally. Subsequently by order dated 1 st April, 1971, the Sangh
was derecognized. This was pursuant to the amended rules. Rule 3 provided that
"no member of the police forces shall participate in, or address, any
meeting or take part in any demonstration organised by any body of persons
(a)for the purpose of protesting against any of the provisions of the Act or
these rules or any other 352 rules made under the Act; or (b)for the purpose of
protesting against any disciplinary action taken proposed to be taken against
him or against any other member of a police force; or (c)for any purpose
connected with any matter pertaining to his remuneration or other conditions of
service or his condition of work or living condition, or the remuneration,
other conditions, of any other member or members of a police force.
"Provided that nothing contained in
clause(c) shall preclude a member of a police force from participating in a
meeting convened by an association of which he is a member and which has been
accorded sanction under sub-section (1) of section3 of the Act, where such
meeting is in pursuance of or for the furtherance of, the objects of such
association." The above rules were amended by a notification dated 19th
December, 1970 the material change for our purpose being an amendment in the
proviso to clause (c) of rule 3.
The original proviso to clause(c) was
substituted by another proviso which reads as follows:
"Provided that nothing contained in
clause (c) shall preclude a member of a police force from participating in a
meeting--(i) which is convened by an association of police-officers of the the
same rank of which he is a member and which has been granted recognition under
clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Act;
(ii) which has been specifically provided for
in the articles of association or/and has been, by general or special order,
permitted by the Inspector General of Police having regard' to the object of
such meeting and other relevant factors; and (iv) which has been convened to
consider the agenda circulated to all concerned according to the relevant
provisions of the articles of association, after giving intimation in advance
to the ' Inspector General of Police or an officer nominated by him."
(Emphasis supplied).
Rule 5 was added to the Rules by virtue of
which minutes had to be recorded of the meetings of a recognised association.
The Inspector General of Police could send observers by virtue of rule 6 to
such meetings. Outsiders were prohibited from attending the meetings of the
association without permission of the Inspector General of Police by Rule 7.
Rules 8, 9 & 11 may also be usefully
read:
353 "8. Recognition: Members of police
force belonging to the same rank desiring to form an association may make an
application for the grant of recognition under clause (b) of subsection (1) of
section 3 and such application shall be in writing under the hand of a representation
of such association addressed to the Inspector General of Police who shall be
the authority to grant, refuse or revoke such recognition;
Provided that before refusing or revoking
recognition, the Association shall be given a reasonable opportunity of making
representation against the proposed action." "9. Suspension of
recognition: The Inspector General of Police may in the interests of the
general public or for the maintenance of discipline in the police-force and
with the prior approval of the Central Government, the State Government or as
the ease may be the Administrator of the Union Territory suspend the
recognition granted under rule 8 for a period not exceeding three months which
may be extended for a further period of three months by the Central Government,
State Government or as the case may be the Administrator of the Union Territory
so however that the total period for which such recognition may be suspended
shall, not, in any case, exceed six months." "11. Special provision
regarding recognition already granted:
Recognition granted prior to the commencement
of the Police Forces (Restriction of Rights) Amendment Rules, 1970, to any
association the articles of association of which are not in conformity with
these rules shall, unless the said artides of association are brought in
conformity with the provisions of these rules within a period of thirty days,
stand revoked on the expiry of the said period."
7. It is the change effected by the new
Proviso to Rule 3(c) which has come in for attack at the hands of the appellants.
Previously all non-gazetted officers of the Delhi Police Department could be
members of the Sangh. Now, the amended proviso to rule 3(c) mandates that only
members of the Police Force having the same rank could constitute themselves
into one Association. The effect of this amended rule is that the Sangh will
have to be composed of various splinter associations consisting of members
holding different ranks. This according to the appellants violates not only
Article 19(1)(c) which protects freedom of association, but also the provisions
of the Act.
354 The immediate provocation for filing the
writ petition was the Circular by which the recognition granted to the Sangh
was revoked. The operative part of the Circular reads as follows:
"Rule 11 of the Police Force (Restriction
of Rights) Amendment Rules, 1970 published vide extraordinary Gazette of India
notification No. GSR-2049 dated 19-12-70 lays down that recognition granted
prior to the commencement of these rules, to any association the articles of
which are not in conformity with these rules shall unless the articles are
brought in conformity with the provisions of these rules within a period of 30
days, stand revoked on the expiry of the said period.
2. Whereas the Constitution of the Delhi
Police NonGazetted Karmchari Sangh which was granted recognition vide
Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs letter No.8/70/66-P.I., dated
12-12-66 and which contains a number of provisions not in conformity with the
above rules, the recognition already granted to the Delhi Police Non-Gazetted
Karmachari Sangh, stands revoked.
3. This may be brought to the notice of a11
ranks.
4. A copy of this circular may be published
in the Delhi Police Gazette." The appellants' counsel Submits that
recognition of the association carries with it the right to continue the association
as such. It is a right flowing from the fact of recognition. To derecognise the
association in effect offends against the freedom of association. It is urged
that once the Government had granted recognition to the Sangh and approved its
constitution neither the Parliament nor any delegated authority can take away
that recognition or dictate to the association who could be its members. The
right available to the members of the association at the commencement should
continue as such without any hindrance.
8. Before considering the questions of law
raised by the appellants' counsel with reference to the decided cases, it would
be useful to bear in mind the fact that this association consists of members of
Police Force who by virtue of this fact alone stands on a different footing
from other associations. The Constitution of India has taken care to lay down
limitations on such, associations from exercising rights under Article
19(1)(c). Article 33 read with 355 Article 19(4) of the Constitution offers an
effective reply to the contention raised by the appellants. Article 33 reads as
follows:
"Parliament may, by law, determine to
what extent any of the rights conferred by this Part shall, in their
application to the members of the Armed Forces or the Forces charged with the
maintenance of public order, be restricted or abroagated so as to ensure the
proper discharge of their duties and the maintenance of discipline among
them." Article 19(4) reads as follows:
"Nothing in sub clause (c) of the said
clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes,
or prevent the State from making any law imposing, in the interests of the
sovereignty and integrity of India or public order or morality, reasonable
restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said
sub-clause." That the Sangh and its members come within the ambit of
Article 33 cannot be disputed. The provisions of the Act and rules taking away
or abridging the freedom of association have been made strictly in conformity
with Article 33. The right under Article 19(1)(c) is not absolute. Article
19(4) specifically empowers the State to make any law to fetter, abridge or
abrogate any of the rights under Article 19(1)(c) in the interest of public
order and other considerations.
Thus the attack against the Act and rules can
be successfully met with reference to these two Articles as members of the
Police Force, like the appellants herein, are at a less advantageous position,
curtailment of whose fights under Article 19(1)(c) comes squarely within
Article 33 in the interest of discipline and public order. This conclusion of
ours is sufficient to dispose of this appeal. However, we will deal with the
submissions made before us for the completeness of the Judgment.
9. The scope of Article 19(1)(c) came up for
consideration before this Court in Damyanti Naranga v. The Union of India &
Ors., [1971] 3 SCR 840. The question related to the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, a Society
registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The Parliament enacted
the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Act under which outsiders were permitted to become
members of the Sammelan without the volition of the original members. This was
challenged and this Court held that any law altering the composition of the
Association compulsorily will be a breach of the right to form the association
because it violated the composite right of forming an association and the right
to continue it as the original members desired it.
356
10. Here we have an entirely different
situation since we are dealing with a group distinct in its nature and
composition from others. Here we are dealing with a force that is invested with
powers to maintain public order.
Article 33 enables Parliament to restrict or
abrogate the fundamental rights in their relation to the Armed Forces including
Police Force. In Ous Kutilingal Achudan Nair & Ors., v. Union India &
Ors., [1976] 2 SCR 769 this Court had to consider two questions; whether the
employees of the defence establishment such as cooks, barbers and like civil
employees were "members of the Armed Forces" and if so whether they
could be validly deprived of their right to form unions in violation of Article
19(1)(c). This Court held that they fell within the category of members of the
Armed Forces and that the Central Government was competent by notification to
make rules restricting or curtailing their right to form associations, Article
19(1)(c) not withstanding.
11. In Raghubar Dayal Jai Prakash v. The
Union of India and Ors., [1962] 3 SCR 547. this Court had to deal with this
question in relation to the functions of an incorporated body the objects of
which were, interalia, to regulate forward transactions in the sale and
purchase of various commodities, Freedom of association is a fundamental right.
It was contended that if a law regulated the
recognition of an association under certain conditions subject to which alone
recognition could be accorded or continued, such conditions were bad. This
Court had to consider whether the freedom of association implied or involved a
guaranteed right to recognition also. The contention was that if the object of
an association was lawful, no restriction could be placed upon it except in the
interest of public order and that freedom to form an association carried with
it the right to determine its internal arrangements also. Repelling this
contention this Court held that restrictions cannot be imposed by statute for
the purpose of regulating control of such associations. While the right to
freedom of association is fundamental, recognition of such association is not a
fundamental right and the Parliament can by law regulate the working of such
associations by imposing conditions and restrictions on such functions.
12. It cannot be disputed that the
fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 19(1)(c) can be claimed by Government
servants. A Government servant may not lose its right by joining Government
service. Article 33 which confers power on the Parliament to abridge or
abrogate such rights in their application to the Armed Forces and other similar
forces shows that such rights are available to all citizens, including Government
servants. But it is, however, necessary to remember that Article 19 confers
fundamental rights which are not absolute but are subject to reasonable
restrictions.
What has happened in this case is only to
impose reasonable restrictions in the interest of discipline and public order.
357
13. The validity of the impugned rule has to
be judged keeping in mind the character of the employees we are dealing with.
It is true that the rules impose a restriction on the right to form
association. It virtually compels a Government servant to withdraw his
membership of the association as soon as recognition accorded to the said
association is withdrawn or if, after the association is formed, no recognition
is accorded to it within six months. In other words, the right to form an
association is conditioned by the existence of the recognition of the said
association by the Government. If the association affairs recognition and
continues to enjoy it, Government servants can become members of the said
association; if the said association does not secure recognition from the
Government or recognition granted to it is withdrawn, Government servants must
cease to be members of the said association. That is the plain effect of the
impugned rule. These rules are protected by Articles 33 and 19(4) of the
Constitution. Besides, it is settled law that the right guaranteed by Article
19(1)(c) to form associations does not involve a guaranteed right to
recognition also.
14. The main grievance of the appellants is
that the first appellant-Sangh when recognised, comprised of Police Officers of
various ranks, the common factor being that all its members were non-gazetted
police officers. This composition was changed by the impugned rules. Not only
is the composition changed; the entire Sangh stood derecognised for failure to
alter its constitution complying with the new rules. This attack cannot be
sustained. Section 3 of the Act permits the rule making authority to define any
group of Police Force that can form an Association. It also gives power to
prescribe the nature of activity that each' such association of members can
indulge in. It, therefore, follows that if rules can be framed defining this
aspect, a rule can also be framed enabling the authorities to revoked or cancel
recognition once accorded, if the activities offended the rules.
15. The further grievance of the appellant is
that nongazetted officers who once formed one block have been further divided
with reference to ranks and that this again is an inroad into their right under
Article 19(1)(c). This submission has been already met. Besides, this
classification based on ranking has its own rationale behind it. We are dealing
with a Force in which discipline is the most important pre-requisite. Non-gazetted
officers consist of men of all ranks; the lowest cadre and officers who are
superior to them. If all the nongazetted officers are grouped together
irrespective of rank, it is bound to affect discipline. It was perhaps,
realising the need to preserve discipline that the changes in the rule were
effected. We are not satisfied that there has been violation of any law in
doing so.
358 On a careful consideration of the
questions involved in this appeal, we hold that the High Court was right in its
decision. We accordingly dismiss the appeal.
S.R. Appeal dismissed.
Back
