Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10
PETITIONER:
DELHI POLICE NON-GAZETTEDKARMCHARI SANGH & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT20/11/1986
BENCH:
KHALID, V. (J)
BENCH:
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 derecognised 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 non-
gazetted 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 grant-
ed 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the recognition granted was revoked.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, there-
fore, 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,
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10
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 Constitu-
tion. [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 funda-
mental 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 serv-
ice. 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 serv-
ants. 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 gov-
ernment servant to withdraw his membership of the associa-
tion 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 mem-
bers 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 disci-
pline 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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10
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 fol-
lowed.
JUDGMENT:
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 declara-
tion 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 Constitu-
tion.
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 emer-
gency 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 organi-
sation 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. Recogni-
tion 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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10
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 mainte-
nance 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 funda-
mental rights guaranteed by Article 19(1)(c) to form Associ-
ation or Unions. Section 3 of the Act reads as follows:
"3(1) No member of a police force shall with-
out the express sanction of the Central Gov-
ernment 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, recre-
tional 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 partici-
pate 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 enact-
ment relating to a force charged with the maintenance of
public order or omit therefrom any enactment already speci-
fied 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.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10
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 protest-
ing 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 serv-
ice 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 associa-
tion."
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 ad-
vance to the ’ Inspector General of Police or
an officer nominated by him." (Emphasis sup-
plied).
Rule 5 was added to the Rules by virtue of which minutes
had to be recorded of the meetings of a recognised associa-
tion. The Inspector General of Police could send observers
by virtue of rule 6 to such meetings. Outsiders were prohib-
ited 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 sub-
section (1) of section 3 and such application
shall be in writing under the hand of a repre-
sentation of such association addressed to the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10
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 peri-
od."
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 appel-
lants. 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 differ-
ent 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 notifica-
tion No. GSR-2049 dated 19-12-70 lays down
that recognition granted prior to the com-
mencement 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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10
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 con-
formity with the above rules, the recognition
already granted to the Delhi Police Non-Gazet-
ted 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 asso-
ciation as such. It is a right flowing from the fact of
recognition. To derecognise the association in effect of-
fends 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 dic-
tate to the association who could be its members. The right
available to the members of the association at the commence-
ment 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 associa-
tion 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 mem-
bers 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 restric-
tions 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 successful-
ly 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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10
ours is sufficient to dispose of this appeal. However, we
will deal with the submissions made before us for the com-
pleteness of the Judgment.
9. The scope of Article 19(1)(c) came up for considera-
tion 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 per-
mitted to become members of the Sammelan without the voli-
tion 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,
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10
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 deal-
ing with. It is true that the rules impose a restriction on
the right to form association. It virtually compels a Gov-
ernment servant to withdraw his membership of the associa-
tion 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 mem-
bers 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 composi-
tion 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, fol-
lows 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 non-
gazetted officers who once formed one block have been fur-
ther 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 classifica-
tion 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.
359
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10