STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. RAMASHANKER RAGHUVANSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since we are clearly of the view that the special leave petition should be dismissed in limine on merits, I would not like to go any further into the details of the facts of the case. I would, therefore, refrain from expressing any opinion on the observations made by my learned brother Chinnappa Reddy, J.

(2.) CHINNAPPA REDDY, J :-. This special leave petition has to be dismissed. There is no merit in it. The respondent was a teacher employed in a municipal school.

(3.) India is not a police State. India is a democratic republic. More than 30 years ago, on Jan. 26, 1950, the people of India resolved to constitute India into a democratic republic and to secure to all its citizens "Liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship; Equality of status and opportunity"; and to promote "Fraternity, assuring the dignity of the individual". This determination of the people, let us hope, is not a forgotten chapter of history. The determination has been written into the articles of the Constitution in the shape of Fundamental Rights and they are what makes India a democratic republic and what marks India from authoritarian or police States. The right to freedom of speech and expression, the right to form associations and unions, the right to assemble peaceably and without arms, the right to equality before the law and the equal protection of the laws, the right to equality of opportunity in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State are declared Fundamental Rights. Yet the Government of Madhya Pradesh seeks to deny employment to the respondent on the ground that the report of a Police Officer stated that he once belonged to some political organisation. It is important to note that the action sought to be taken against the respondent is not any disciplinary action on the ground of his present involvement in political activity after entering the service of the Government, contrary to some Service Conduct Rule. It is further to be noted that it is not alleged that the respondent ever participated in any illegal, vicious or subversive activity. There is no hint that the respondent was or is a perpetrator of violent deeds, or that be exhorted anyone to commit violent deeds. There is no reference to any addiction to violence or vice or any incident involving violence, vice or other crime. All that is said is that before he was absorbed in Government service, he had taken part in some 'RSS or Jansangh activities'. What those activities were has never been disclosed. Neither the RSS nor the Jansangh is alleged to be engaged in any subversive or other illegal activity; nor are the organisations banned. Most people, including intellectuals, may not agree with the programme and philosophy of the Jansangh and the RSS or, for that matter, of many other political parties and organisations of an altogether different hue. But that is irrelevant. Everyone is entitled to his thoughts and views. There are no barriers. Our Constitution guarantees that. In fact members of these organisations continue to be members of Parliament and State Legislatures. They are heard often with respect, inside and outside the Parliament. What then was the sin that the respondent committed in participating in some political activity before his absorption into Government service What was wrong in his being a member of an organisation which is not even alleged to be devoted to subversive or illegal activities 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 our mind to cut at the very root of the Fundamental Rights of equality of opportunity in the matter of employment, freedom of expression and freedom of association. It is a different matter altogether if a police report is sought on the question of the involvement of the candidate in any criminal or subversive activity in order to find out his suitability for public employment. But why seek a police report on the political faith of a candidate and act upon it Politics is no crime. Does it mean that only True Believers in the political faith of the party in power for the time being are entitled to public employment Would it not lead to devastating results, if such a policy is pursued by each of the Governments of the constituent States of India where different political parties may happen to wield power, for the time being Is public employment reserved for "the cringing and the craven, in the words of Mr. Justice Black of the United States Supreme Court Is it not destructive of the dignity of the individual mentioned in the preamble of the Constitution Is it to be put against a youngman that before the cold climate of age and office freezes him into immobility, he takes part in some political activity in a mild manner. Most students and most youngmen are exhorted by national leaders to take part in political activities and if they do get involved in some form of agitation or the other, is it to be to their ever-lasting discredit Some times they get involved because they feel strongly and badly about injustice, because they are possessed of integrity and because they are fired by idealism. They get involved because they are pushed into the forefront by elderly leaders who lead and occasionally mislead them. Should all these youngmen be debarred from public employment Is Government service such a heaven that only angels should seek entry into it We do not have the slightest doubt that the whole business of seeking police reports, about the political faith, belief and association and the past political activity of a candidate for public employment is repugnant to the basic rights guaranteed by the Constitution and entirely misplaced in a democratic republic dedicated to the ideals set forth in the preamble of the Constitution. We think it offends the Fundamental Rights guaranteed by Arts. 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. To hold otherwise would be to introduce 'McCarthyism' into India. 'McCarthyism' is obnoxious to the whole philosophy of our Constitution. We do not want it.