NCLAT: Unenforced Equitable Mortgage is Corporate Debtor’s Asset, Not to Be Treated as Margin Money  ||  NCLT Approves Hindustan Unilever’s Ice Cream Business Demerger into Kwality Wall’s  ||  Supreme Court: Bar Councils Cannot Charge Over Rs 750 for Enrollment or Withhold Applicants’ Docs  ||  SC Cancels POCSO Conviction, Observing Crime Resulted from Love, Not Lust, After Marriage  ||  Supreme Court: Advocates Can be Summoned Only under S.132 BSA Exceptions with Prior Officer Approval  ||  Allahabad HC: Juvenile Conviction Cannot be Treated as Disqualification for Government Jobs  ||  Delhi HC: DV Act Rights of Daughter-in-Law Cannot Deny In-Laws’ Right to Reside in Home  ||  Delhi HC: Waitlist Panel Cannot Be Segregated, Vacancies Must Be Filled From Valid Waitlist  ||  Delhi HC: Matrimonial FIR Cannot Be Quashed If Couple’s Settlement Agreement is Not Executed  ||  Delhi HC Bars All India Carrom Federation from Using “India” or “Indian” in its Name    

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