DELHI POLICE NON-GAZETTED KARMCHARI SANGH & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [1987] 1 S.C.R. 347 · Decided: 20-11-1986 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V. KHALID · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

348 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1987] I S.C.R. 
HELD: 1.1 The Police Force (l~estriction of Rights) Act (33 of) 1966, 
A 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(1Xc) of the Constitution. [350 
C, 355 E-F] 
1.2 The right under Article l9(1Xc) is not. absolute. Article 19(4) 
B 
specifically empowers the State to make any law to fetter, abridge or abrogate 
any of the rights under Article 19(1Xc) 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 rights and the Parliament 
can by law regu~te the working of sum .associations by imposing conditions 
and restrictions on such functions. [3:55 E, 356 F) 
C 
1.3 The fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 19(1Xc) 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 rights are available to 
D 
all citizens, including government serv:mts. 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)ofthe 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 1that the rules impose a restriction on the 
E 
right to form association. It virtually compels a government servant lo 
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the said association is withdrawn or If, after the association is formed, no 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 e:<istence of the ·recognition of the said 
association by the government. If thE: association obtains recognition and 
F 
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 asmciation. That is the plain effect of the 
impugned rule. These rules are proteded by Articles 33 and 19(4) of the 
Constitution. Besides, it is settled law that the right guaranteed by Article 
G 
19(1 X c )to form associations does not involve a guaranteed right to recognition 
also. [357 A-CJ · 
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 
H association of members can indulge in. lt, therefore, follows that if rules can be 
D.P. v. UNION OF INDIA [KHALID, J.) 
349 
y 
framed defining this aspect, a rule can also be framed enablmg the authorities to A 
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 m which discipline is the most important pre-
requisite. Non-gazetted officers consist of men of all ranks; the lowest citdre and 
officers who are superior to them. If all the non-gazetted officers are grouped 
B 
together irrespective of rank, it is bound to affect discipline. It was perhaps, 
') 
realismg the need to preserve disciplme that the changes in the rule were 
effected. [ 357E, G] 
-.,\ 
·Damyanh' Naranga v. 'Jhe Union of India & Ors., [1971]3 SCR840; Ous 
Kutilingal Achudan Nair & Ors., v. Union of India & Ors., [1976] 2 SCR 769; 
and Raghubar Dayal Jai Prakash v. 'Jhe Union of India & Ors., [1962] 3 SCR c 
547 followed. 
-1 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 222 (N) of 
1973. 
D 
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. 
r 
B. Datta, Additional Solicitor General, G.D. Gupta and Mr. C.V. Subba E 
Rao for the Respondents. 
The Jud~ent of the Court was delivered by 
• 
KHALID, J. I. This appeal by certificate is directed against the 
' 
. Judgment ·of a Division Bench of th

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.