LexSTATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. versus THAKUR PRATAP SINGH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A ugwsl 18.
222
SCPREME COUHT HEPORTS
[1961]
THE 8TATE OF HA,JASTHAI\ AND ORS.
THAKUH PRATAP SINGH.
(8. I\. lJAS, M. HIDAYATULLAH, K. c. DAS GUPTA,
J.C. SHAH and N. RAJAOOPALA AYYANOAR, JJ.)
Discrimination on groZ4nds of caste and religion-Govertunt'll
110/ijicalio" exempting Harijans a11d Muslims from payment of addi-
liPnal police cos/-1-alidity-Conslilulion of India. Ari. 15(1) --
I'olicc Act, 1861 (I. of 1861), s. 15.
Ry para 4 of a notification issued under s. 15 of the Police
Act the Rajasthan Go\'ernment exempted the Harijan and Mus-
li1n.in11abitants of Certain villages fro1n payment of the cost of
additional police force stationed therein.
'fhc notification y,·as
r:hallcngc<l as being violative of the guarantee contained in
Art. 15(1) of the Constitution of India.
Held, that since para 4 of the notification had discriminated
<1gainst the law-abiding members of other con1munities and in
favour of the ~tuslims and Harijans on the grouncis of caste and
religion, it was directly hrt by the provision of. Art. 15(1) of the
Con'Stitution and as such must be declared to be invalid.
CIVIL Al'l'E[,f.ATF.
,JURISDICTION : Civil
Appeal
No. 231 of 1956.
Appeal from th<' judgment and order dated Sop-
tl'rnber 11, 1953, of th" H.ajasthan High Court (Jaipur
B"nch) at Jaipur in Writ Application No. 141 of
l !!.52.
M. 8. K. Sa81ri and 1'. M. Sen, for the appolla.nts.
The respondent did not appear.
1960.
August 18.
The Judgment of tho Court
was dclh-ered hy
lln_-.,,o{'nl•
RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, J.-This appeal raises for
.h.,,;1ga. J.
consideration
the
constitutional
validity of one
para.graph of a notification issued by the State of
H.ajasthan under s. 15 of the Police Act, 1861 (V of
1861), under which "the Harijan" and "Muslim"
inhabitants of the villages, in which an additional
police force was stationed, were exempted from the
obligation to bear any portion of the cost of tha.t force.
It is stated tha.t the inhabitauts of certain villages
-
I. S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
223 ·
in the district of Jhunjhunu in the State of Rajasthan,
harboured dacoits and receivers of stolen proper.ty, and
w,ere besides creating trouble between landlords and
tenants as a result of which there were serious riots in ·
the' locality in the course of which some persons· lost
The State of
Rajasthan
.£~· 0 Oie rs
v.
their lives. The State Government· therefore_. took Thaku' Prntap
action uhder s. 15 of the Police Act: This Section
St'ngh
provides :
.
.
Rajagopala
"Quartering of additional police in disturbed or , Ayyanga' J.
dangerous districts-
( I) It shall be lawful for the State.Government,:
· by proclamation to be notified in the .official Gazette,
and in such other manner as the State Government
shall direct, to declare that any area subject to its
authority has been found to be in a disturbed or dan-
gerous state, or that, from the conduct of the inhabit-
ants of such area, or of any class or section of them,
it is expedient to increase the number of police.
(2) It shall thereupon be lawful for th~ Inspector-
General' of Police, or other officer authorised by the
State Government in this behalf, with the sanction of
the State Government, to employ any police-force in -
addition to the ordinary fixed complement to be
quartered in the areas specified in such proclamation
as aforesaid.
· (3) Subject to the pro~isions of sub-section (5) of -
this section, the cost of such additional police-force
shall be borne by the inhabitants of such area descri-
bed in the proclamation.
.
( 4) The Magistrate of the district, after such en-
quiry as he may deem necessary; shall apportion such
cost among the inhabitants . who are, as aforesaid,
liable to bear the same and who shall not have been
·exempted under the .next succeeding sub-section.
Such apportionment shall be mad\) according to the
Magistrate's judgment of the respective means within
such area ·of such inhabitants;
(5) ,It shall be lawful for the State Government by
order to exempt any persons or class or section of such
· inhabitants from liability to bear any portion of such
cost."
Sub-section (6) is omitted as not relevant.
Tiu Stale a/
Ua;a.(/han
6-
Otl.rr.~
v.
Thall.rfr p,atap
S2nJ:h
Rajag(lpafa
A,-_.,a11gar J
224
SVPRE111E COl:RT REPOHTS
[1961]
The notification by which these provisions were
invoked and which is impugned in these proceedings
was in these terms :-
" Whereas the Ra.jpra.mukExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.