T V ANANDAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The main point that arises for consideration in this case is whether the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh can be denied the privilege of using Government. School buildings for accommodating delegates of their conference as long as their activities are not banned and when other organisations are allowed the same privilege. The 1st petitioner is the Secretary of the Kerala Pradesh Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and the 2nd petitioner is the Tellicherry Taluk Karyavah of the Sangh. The petitioners' case is: The Sangh is a nonpolitical cultural organisation devoted mainly to the fundamental task of reforming and reorganising the people of India. The Sangh was formed in 1925. The membership of the Sangh is open to all irrespective of their caste, creed or community. The volunteers of the Sangh had performed yeo-man service during the floods in Andhra, Delhi and Uttar Pradesh and recently in some parts of Kerala also. The Sangh has not been indulging in any kind of objectionable activities. On the 20th and 21st of Jan., 1979 a reception was organised in honour of Sri Bala Sahib Deoras, the Sar Sangh Chalak of the R.S.S. For the purpose of the stay of the delegates, the 2nd petitioner applied for the sanction of the Government High School building, Chi-rakkara. The 3rd respondent-District Educational Officer by Ext. P-1 order dated 7-10-1978 sanctioned the use of the school building. All the arrangements were made by the petitioners. Then, on the 16th of Jan., 1979, the 3rd respondent issued Ext. P-2 order to the 2nd petitioner cancelling Ext. P-l sanction. When the 3rd respondent was contacted, the 1st petitioner came to know that Ext. P-2 was issued under the instructions of higher authorities. Ext. P-3 is a Government letter dated 17-10-1978 directing the 2nd respondent-Director of Public Instruction that 'school buildings and compounds should not be rented out or given for R.S.S. activities'. By Ext. P-4, the 2nd respondent circulated Ext. P-3 Government letter to all District Educational Officers. Ext. P-2 happened to be issued by the 3rd respondent under the instructions of respondents 1 and 2. Not a single instance had been reported since 1925 of any untoward or unpleasant incident in any of the camps held by the Sangh.

(2.) It was under the above circumstances that the petitioners approached this Court with this original petition challenging Exts. P-2 to P-4. Over and above the quashing of Exts. P-2 to P-4, the petitioners also have prayed for a declaration that Exts. P-2 to P-4 are violative of Articles 14, 19 (1) (a), (b) and (c) and Article 25 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners have raised the following contentions in the original petition: Ext. P-2 is not a speaking order. Ext. P-2 is not only an administrative order but is also a quasi-judicial order affecting the rights of the petitioners. Ext. P-2 is also not supported by any valid reason. There is no valid justification in discriminating the petitioners alone in the matter of sanctioning the use of school buildings and compounds. An unreasonable classification excluding the petitioners and their organisation alone in an arbitrary manner without assigning any reason is totally opposed to the provisions contained in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. No other organisation, whether political or otherwise, has been so prohibited from the use of school premises for the purpose of stay. The Sangh alone is singled out for such discrimination. Exts. P-2, P-3 and P-4 are totally violative of the equality clause of the Constitution of India contained in Article 14. Exts. P-2 to P-4 also offend Article 19 (1) (a), (b) and (c) of the Constitution of India. The effect of Exts. P-2 to P-4 orders are prevention and total prohibition of the holding of a function in Tellicherry. It is submitted that the said prohibition or prevention or curtailment is not saved by any of the clauses of Article 19. Exts. P-3 and P-4 are clear abuse of the executive powers of the Government. Exts. P-2 to P-4 are clearly mala fide and amount to colourable exercise of power. The impugned orders constitute an infraction of the freedom of conscience guaranteed to the petitioners in Article 25 of the Constitution of India. The school in question is sought to be used only for residential purposes of the delegates attending the reception and as no other activity is intended to be performed there, the prohibition really amounts to a prohibition of entertaining or keeping a particular ideology in mind. It is therefore against Article 25 of the Constitution. Ext. P-2 is clearly mala fide not only on account of malice in fact, but also due to the non-application of mind by all the respondents. Before the issue of Ext. P-2, some of the Youth Wings of the ruling parties passed resolution demanding total prohibition of the functions organised by the Sangh at Tellicherry and it was this that influenced the Government to issue Ext. p-2 cancellation. Rule 15, Chapter IV, Kerala Education Rules, 1959 is a law in force which governs the sanctioning of the school buildings. Exts. P-3 and p-4 cannot have any legal force as the Government have no authority to vary a statutory rule and impose different conditions contrary to statutory rules.

(3.) A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 1st respondent-State. In the counter-affidavit it is stated: By Ext. P-l the 3rd respondent-District Educational Officer gave sanction, but later, the Government took a decision not to rent out school buildings and compounds as per Ext. P-3. Under Rule 15 Chapter IV of the Kerala Education Rules, the 3rd respondent-District Educational Officer can, not only give permission but has the right to cancel the permission given. The policy of the State is that school buildings and premises should not be allowed to be used for political purposes. The powers conferred on the District Educational Officers in "this regard are exercised by them according to their discretion. The District Educational Officer corrected his mistake by cancelling the permission. If the R.S.S. volunteers are allowed to do their activities in the premises of a Government School, chaos and confusion would arise in the locality resulting in disorder and failure of law and order. No rights of the petitioners under Article 19 of the Constitution have been infringed by the issue of Ext. P-2 order. Government felt that the activities of the R.S.S. are harmful to the public tranquillity if they are allowed to stay in a place where children of all community study. By Exts. P-2 to P-4 none of the rights of the petitioners guaranteed under any of the provisions of Constitution of India has been violated. On the basis of the interim stay order of the High Court, permission was granted to the petitioners for the use of the school buildings and premises of Government High School, Chirakkara for 2 days on the 20th and 21st of Jan., 1979 and hence the petitioners cannot have any grievance at present.