R. VISWAN & OTHERS versus UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS

Citation: [1983] 3 S.C.R. 60 · Decided: 06-05-1983 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 5 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

60: 
A 
B 
R. VISWAN & OTHERS 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS 
May 6, 1983 
[Y. V. CHANDRACH.UD, C.J, P. N. BHAGWATI, 
0. CH!NNAPPA REDDY, V. BALAKRJSHNA ERAD! AND 
R. B. MISRA, JJ.] 
Aony Act, 1950-S. 21-Constitutional validity of-Whether saved by Art . 
. c 
33. 
D 
E 
F 
G 
III 
Anny Act, 1950-Sub-ss. (1) and (4) of s. 4-'FOrce'-Meaning of 
General Resen•e Engineerring Force (GREF)-Whether it is 
'fore:~· withill 
the 1neaning of sub-ss. (1) and (4) ofs. 4 of Army Act, 1950-Whether .n1en1bers 
ofGREF are me111hers of 'Arrned For"·es' witirin tire nwaning of Art. 33 of 
Constitution-Whether S.R. Os. 329 and 330 ayplying provisions of A.riny Act, 
1950 and Anny Rules 1954 to rnembers of GREF in exercise of power under sub-ss. 
(J) and (4) of s. 4 of Ar1n.v Act, 1959 ultra vires Art. 33 of Constitution-Whether 
application of Central Civif Services (Clossi/ication, Control and Appeal) Rules, 
1965 as also prov;sions of Army Act and Ar1ny Rules lo n1enibers or GREF 
·violative of Art. 14 of Constitution. 
· 
~ 
. 
The petitioners who belonged to the General Reserve Engineering FOrce 
(GREFJ were charged under s. 63 of the .\rn1y Act, 1950 on allegations inter 
alia that they had assen1bled in front of the Chief Engineer and shouted slogans 
demanding release of personnel placed under arrest, 'participated in. a bla,ek 
flag demonstration and associated themselves with an illegal ·association. They 
were tried by Court lvfartial in accordance with the prescribed procedure and, 
on. being convicted, were dismi.ssed·from ser.,,ice. 
The petitioners submitted that their convictions by Court Martial were 
illegal and raised the following contentions in suppor't of their 
pJ~a : that the 
GREF was a civilian construction agency and not a •force' raised and n1aintai-
ned under the authority of the Central Governn1ent and conSequently, the mem-
bers of GREF were not "members of Armed Forces or the Forces ch3rged 
with the maintenance of public order" within the meaning of Art. 33 of the 
Constitution and' therefore the application of s. 21 of the Army Act rea11" with 
rs. 19 to 21 of the Army Rules to them was unconstitutional since it restricted 
their fundamental rights in a manner not permitted by the Constitution; that 
S.R. Os 329 and 330 which were notifications having the effect of applyjng the 
provisions of the Army Act and the Anny Rules to the members of the GREF 
were ultra vires the powers of the Central Government under sub~ss. (1) and (4) 
of s. 4 of the· Army Act; that s. 21 of the Anny Act was unconstitutional as it 
;.. 
~·· 
,) 
\ 1 
)( 
R. VISWAN V. UNION 
was not justified by the terms of Art. 33 since under that Article it was Parlia-
ment alone which was entrusted with the power to detern1ine to what extent 
any of the fundamental rights shaJl,,jn application to the members of the Armed 
Forcea or Forces charged with the maintenance of public order, be restricted or 
abrogated and Parliament could not have left it to the. Central Government to 
determine the extent of such restriction or abrogation as was sought tO be done 
under 5, 21; that the petitioners were entitled to exercise their fundamental 
rights under els. (a), (b) and (c) of Art. 19 (!) without any of the restrictions 
in1posed by rs. 19 to 21 of the Army Rules and therefore they could not be 
ch.arged under s. 63 of the Army Act on the facts alleged against them; that 
their trial was not in accordance with law; and that 'the. application of the 
provisions of the Army Act and the Army Rules to. the members of GREF ·for 
purposes of discipline was discriminatory and violative of Art. 14 inasmuch 
as the mem.bers of the GREF were governed both by the Central Civil Services 
(Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 and the provisions of the 
Army Act and the Army Rules in m~tters of discipline. 
Dismissing the petitions, 
HELD t. (a) The functions arid duties of GREF are integrally connec~ 
ted with the operational plans and requirements~of the· Armed Forces. There 
can be no doubt that without the efficient and disciplined operational role of 
GREF the .military operations in border areas during peace as also in tirries of 
. war will be seriously hampered and a highly disciplined arid .efficient GREF is 
absolutely essential for supporting 1he operational plans and meeting the 
operational requirements of the Armed Fojces. The members of the GR~F 
answer the description of"members of the Armed Forces" within the meaning 
of Art. 33 an
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.