JANARDAN VASANT PATIL Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India raises a question of great significance and importance. That question is whether the respondents to this writ petition were justified in rejecting the application of the petitioners before us requesting for grant of permission to form an association of police personnel for the rank of Assistant Superintendent of Police and below.

(2.) Though the petitioners have understood the controversy as above, there are other issues involved. That is arising out of a refusal of the then Director General of Police, vide the impugned order, to the concerned police officials to establish an association of policemen. It is the permission to establish such association which itself is rejected. This rejection is challenged on the ground that it violates the freedom guaranteed vide Article 19 of the Constitution of India and particularly Article 19(1)(c). That right to freedom and in the subject case of forming association or union cannot be denied only on the ground that the applicants or persons seeking to establish the association are policemen. It is stated that clause 4 of Article 19 does not in any manner permit the State from refusing the permission as sought or to make any law imposing a restriction of this nature. This rejection is much beyond the parameters of clause (4) of Article 19 of the Constitution of India. The refusal is a threshold action. It is at the inception that the policemen have been prohibited from coming together and form an association. This refusal, therefore, violates the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Equally, the refusal cannot be justified on the touchstone of Article 33 clause (b). It is urged that the restriction or abrogation is not justified even on the touchstone of the said clause of Article 33. That is because it is the prerogative of the Parliament and the Parliament alone could determine to what extent any of the rights, conferred by para 3 shall, in their application, to the members of the force charged with maintenance of public order, be restricted or abrogated. It is thus claimed that the impugned order is, therefore, ultra vires this constitutional provision, wholly illegal and deserves to be quashed and set aside.

(3.) The above issues are raised in the backdrop of the following facts and circumstances: