P&H HC: Eyewitness Account Not Credible if Eyewitness Directly Identifies Accused in Court  ||  Delhi HC: Conditions u/s 45 PMLA Have to Give Way to Article 21 When Accused Incarcerated for Long  ||  Delhi High Court: Delhi Police to Add Grounds of Arrest in Arrest Memo  ||  Kerala High Court: Giving Seniority on the Basis of Rules is a Policy Decision  ||  Del. HC: Where Arbitrator has Taken Plausible View, Court Cannot Interfere u/s 34 of A&C Act  ||  Ker. HC: No Question of Estoppel Against Party Where Error is Committed by Court Itself  ||  Supreme Court: Revenue Entries are Admissible as Evidence of Possession  ||  SC: Mere Breakup of Relationship Between Consenting Couple Can’t Result in Criminal Proceedings  ||  SC: Bar u/s 195 CrPC Not Attracted Where Proceedings Initiated Pursuant to Judicial Order  ||  NTF Gives Comprehensive Suggestions on Enhancing Better Working Conditions of Medical Professions    

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 2024 - All Rights Reserved