Supreme Court: Driving Licence Renewal After a Gap Will Not Take Effect From Expiry Date  ||  Supreme Court: High Courts Cannot Quash Cheque Bounce Cases by Pre-Trial Inquiry Into Liability  ||  Supreme Court: Passport Renewal Cannot be Denied if Trial Court Has Permitted it Despite Pending Case  ||  SC: Delay in Depositing Sale Balance Does not Make Specific Performance Decree Inexecutable  ||  Supreme Court: Non-Compete Fees Qualify as Deductible Revenue Expenditure under Income Tax Act  ||  Supreme Court: Section 311 CrPC Should be Invoked Sparingly, Only When Evidence is Vital  ||  J&K&L High Court: Successive Bail Applications Can Be Filed Even Without Change in Circumstances  ||  Kerala HC: Fresh Arbitration Notice is Required For Second Arbitration After Prior Award Set Aside  ||  NCLT Hyderabad: Mortgaging Property Without Lending Money Does Not Constitute Financial Debt  ||  Supreme Court: Vacancies From Resignations under CUSAT Act Must Follow Communal Rotation    

Kameshwar Prasad and Ors. v. The State of Bihar and Anr. - (High Court of Patna) (07 Jul 1958)

Abrogating the right to demonstrations

MANU/BH/0048/1959

Constitution

Striking and protesting, recognised as purveyors of social change in the country basically borne from them, are both a scourge and boon. How much so was the tightrope Patna High Court had to be traverse. With questions over government servants’ right to strike before it, the balance of “conflicting social interests, the social interest of protecting freedom of speech… and the social interest of preserving the discipline and efficiency of the civil service in a democratic society” was a tricky one indeed. A year previous, the Government of Bihar had inserted Rule 4A in the ‘Bihar Government Servants' Conduct Rules 1956’ prohibiting participation in demonstrations or strokes in any matter pertaining to their conditions of service. The court was in favour of a disciplined and efficient civil service, finding reasonable the restrictions. So sounded the death knell for Bihar’s government servants’ right to strike.

Till appeal that is. The Supreme Court took rather a different view to the abrogation of the freedom to demonstrate. It opined, “threat to public order should therefore arise from the nature of the demonstration prohibited”. It pointed out that whereas a ban on demonstrations that could disturb public tranquility was sustainable, a lay ban on every type of demonstration was in violation Article 19(2) of the Constitution. Moreover, “the rule prohibit[ing] a strike cannot be struck down since there is no fundamental right to a strike.” Note: Rule 4A was struck down.

Relevant : Kameshwar Prasad and Ors. v. The State of Bihar and Anr. MANU/SC/0410/1962 Superintendent, Central Prison, Fatehgarh v. Ram Manohar Lohia MANU/SC/0058/1960 Article 19 Constitution of India Act

Tags : DEMONSTRATION   FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION   GOVERNMENT SERVANT  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved