KAMESHWAR PRASAD AND OTHERS versus THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1962] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 369 · Decided: 22-02-1962 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.K. DAS, P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, A.K. SARKAR, K.N. WANCHOO, N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

3 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
369 
KAMESHWAR PRASAD AND OTHERS 
v. 
THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER 
(P. B. GA.JENDRAGADKAR, A. K. SARKAR, K. N. 
WANCHOO, K. C. DAS GUPTA and 
N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, .JJ.) 
Government Servant-Participation in strike.9 or demonstra• 
tions-Rule prohibiting strikes or demonstrations pertaining 
to conditions of 
service-Oondtutional validity of rule-
"Detnonstration". meaning of-Bihar Governm,ent 
Servants' 
Conduct 
Rules, 
1956, 
r. 
4-A-Constitution of India, 
Art•. 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b), J.9(1) (c), 33, 309. 
By a notification dated August 16, 1957, the Government 
of 
Bihar introduced r. 4-A into the Bihar Gevernment 
Servani:s' Conduct Rules, ! 956, which provided "No Govern-
ment servant shall partjcipate in any demonstration or resort 
to any form of strike in connection with any matter pertaining 
to his conditions of service." The appellants filed a petition 
before the High Court of Patna under Art. 226 of the Con-
stitution of India challenging the ,validity of the rule on the 
grounds, inter alia, that it violated sub-els. (a), (b) and (c) of 
Art. 19 and that, in coniequence, the rule was in excess of the 
rule making power conferred by Art. 309. 
The High Court 
took the view that the freedom guaranteed under Arts. 19 (1) 
(a' and 19 (1) (c) did not include a right to demonstrate or to 
strike so far as servants of Government were concerned, 3.nd 
that in any case, the impugned rule was saved as impo3ing 
reasonable restrictions. 
He.ld, that r. 4·A of the Bihar Government Servants' 
Conduct Rules, 1956, in so far as it prohibited any form of 
dernostration, be it however innocent or however incapable of 
causing a breach of public tranquillity, was vioiative of Arts. 
19 (1) (a) and 19(l)(b) of the Constitution of India, and since 
on t~1e language of the rule as it stood it was not possible to so 
read it as to separate the legal from the unconstitutional por-
tion of the provision, the entire rule relating to participation in 
any demonstration must he declared as ultre vlrcs. 
T/1e Superintendant, Central Pri8on, Fetehgarh v. Ram 
Marw/iar Lohia, [1960] 2 S. C.R. 821, relie~ on. 
The Constitution has under Art. 33, selected two of the 
Services uncier the State, the ~trnbers ~f WJiich might b~ 
196! 
February 22. 
Karruthwar fraxad 
•• 
~ 
Staft Qj Bfl1ar 
370 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1962] SUPP. 
deprived of the benefit of the fundamental rights guaranteed 
to other persons and citizens and also has prescribed the limit~ 
within which such rcscrictions or abrogation might take place; 
but the ocher clau'iscs of servants of Govcrn1nent in co1nmon 
with other persons and citizens of the country cannot be exclu· 
<led from the protection of the rights guaranteed by part JI I 
by reason 1nerely of their being Govern1nent scr\'ants, though 
on account of nature and incidents of the duties \vhich they 
have to discharge in that capacity, certain restrictions on their 
freedoms rnight have to be imposed. 
Heid, further, that the rule in so far as it prohibited 
strikes v.•as valid, because there was no fundamental right t0 
resort to a strike. 
All India Rllnk /~1npl1Jyers' Asaocir1tion v. _,
1ationrzl Indus· 
trial Tribunal, (1962] 3 S.C.R. 269, followed. 
Civil Az>pellate .l'llrisdfrtion: Civil Appeal Xo. 
41.l of 1959. 
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated 
,July 7, 19.~8, of the Patn:t High Court in 
~I. ,J.C. 
~o. 456 of 1957. 
B. P. Jfoheshwari, for the appellants. 
S. P. Va;-ma, for the rcspowlrnts. 
B. Sen and R.H. Dhchar, for the Intervener 
No. l (Cnion of India). 
A. S. R. Chari, M. K. Rammni1rthi, R. K. Garg, 
]). P. Singh and S. C. Agarwal, for the Inwn·ener 
No 2 (E. X. Joseph). 
1962. February 22. 
The Judgment of the 
Court was delivered by 
AYYA:XGAR, J.-This appeal comes beforo. us 
by virtue of a certificate of fitness grnntNI under 
Art. 132 of the Constitution by the High Court of 
Patna. The question involve<! in the app<•al is a 
8hort ono but is of considerable puhlic importance 
and of great constitutional significance. 
ft. 
i~ con· 
cerned with the constitutional validity of r. 4·A, 
•
l 
• 
-
3S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
371 
which was introduced into the Bihar Government 
Servants' Conduct Rules, 1956; by a notification 
of the Governor of Bihar dated August 16, 1957 
and reads: 
"4~A.-Demonstrations and strikes.-
No Government servant shall participate 
in any demonstration or resort to any form of 
strike in connection with any matter pe

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