STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH versus RAMASHANKAR RAGHUVANSHI & ANOTHER

Citation: [1983] 2 S.C.R. 393 · Decided: 21-02-1983 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

' 
> 
.. 
393 
A 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
v. 
. RAM,b,.SHANKAR RAGHUVANSHI & ANOTHER 
B 
February 21, 1983 
(S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI A~!D 0, CH!NNAPPA REDDY, JJ.) 
• 
Constitution of India. 1950-Art. 311-Seeking police report on past po/iii· 
C 
cal activity and faith of a person for public employment-Whether offends articles 
14 and 16 of the Constitution. 
Consequent upon the talcing over by the Government of the municipal 
school in which the respondent worked as a teacher, he was absorbed in Govern. 
ment service. The order stated that his absorption in Government service was 
subject to verification of his antecedents. Sometime later: on the basis of the 
report of the Superintendent of Police that before being absorbed in Government 
service the respondent bad taken part "lo RSS and Jan Sangh activities his services 
were terminated on the ground that he was not a fit perso,a to be .entertained in 
Government service. 
On the view that the order of termination of his service was of a puni· 
tive character, passed without complying with the provisions of Art. 311 of the 
Constitution, the High Court quashed that order. 
Dismissing the special leave petition under Art. 136 of the Constitution, 
HELD: 
per S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J. 
The special leave petition should be dismissed in limine. [394 HJ 
per O. Chinnappa Reddy, J. 
The respondent cannot be turned back at the very threshold on the 
ground of his past political activities. Once be becomes a Government servant, 
he becomes subject to the various rules reSulating his conduct and his activities 
must naturally be subject 
to all rules made in conformity with the 
Constitution. [402 E-F] 
· 
The determination of the people of this country to constitute India into 
D 
E 
F 
G 
a democratic republic and to secure to all its s:itizens "liberty of thought, 
H 
expression, belief, faith and worship; Equality of status and opportunity" bas 
been" written into tho articles of the Constitution in the shape of funda!Dental 
A 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
• 
394 
SUPltEME COUltT ltEPOltTS 
[1983] 2 S.C.lt. 
rights and they are what makes India a democratic republic and what marks 
India from authoritarian or police states. The right to form associations and 
unions, among other rights, is declared as a fundamental right; yet the State 
Government sought to deny employment to him on the ground that the report 
of a police officer stated that he ·once belonged to some political organisation. 
(395 F-H] 
The action sought to be taken against the respondent was not any dis-
ciplinary action on the ground of bis present involvement in political activities 
contrary to some Service conduct rule nor was there any allegation that he ever 
participated in any illegal or subversive activity or that he was a perpetrator of 
violent deed's, All that was said was that before he was absorbed in Govern· 
meat service he bad taken part in RSS and Jan Sangh a.:tivitics. What those 
activities were had never been disclosed. Neither the RSS nor the Jan Sangh 
was alleged to be engaged in any subversive or other illegal activities, nor were 
they banned organisations. Most people may not agree with the programme 
and philosophy of the Jan Sangh or RSS but that is irrelevent. Everyone is 
entitled to his thoughts and view!1. 
Members of these organisations· continue 
to be members of Parliament and State legislatures. They are heard often with 
respect both inside and outside the Parliament. [395 H; 396 A-DJ 
The whole idea of seeking a police report on the political faith and the 
past political activity of a candidate for public employment appears to cut at 
the very root of the fundamental rightS of equality of opportunity in the matter 
of employment and freedom of association. It offends the fundamental rights 
guaranteed by articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution to deny employment to an 
-individual because of his past political affinities, unless such affinities are 
considered likely to affect the integrity and efficiency of the individual's service. 
[397 D-E] 
Wieman v. Updegraff, 344 U.S. 183 & Spelsar v. Randall, 357 U.S. 573, 
referred to. 
OvJL APPHLATl Ju~JSDJCTION : Petition for ·Special Leave 
to Appeal (Civil) No. 4679 of 1980. 
From the Judgment and Order dated the 24th July, 1979 of 
the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Misc. Petition 
No. 119 of 1975. 
Gopal Subramaniam and D. P. Mohanty for the Petitioner. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
f AZAL -ALI. J., Since

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