CHINTA HARAN DUTTA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application by one Chinta Haran Dutta who is the honorary general secretary of the Calcutta Police Association. In this application, the petitioner on behalf of the said association challenges the enforcement of the Police Forces (Restriction of Rights) Act, 1966 and the rules framed thereunder which have been made applicable to the State of West Bengal from 1st November, 1970 by the notification dated 22nd October. 1970 and by the directions dated 22nd October, 1970, The petitioner contends that the said association was recognised long ago and by the impugned Act and the notification being made enforceable in West Bengal rights under Art 14 and Article 19 of the Constitution have been violated. Rights of the members of the armed forces or of the forces charged with the maintenance of public order can, however, be restricted or abrogated so as to ensure proper discharge of their duties and maintenance of discipline among them by any Act passed by the Parliament pursuant to Article 33 of the Constitution. Therefore, by virtue of Article 33 of the Constitution the rights of those who are charged with the maintenance of public order can be abrogated or restricted by any Act passed by Parliament, irrespective of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution 90 as to ensure proper discharge of duties by them and maintenance of discipline among them.

(2.) The Police Forces (Restriction of Rights) Act, 1966 is an Act which was passed, as preamble to the said Act states, to provide for restrictions of certain rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution in their application to the members of the forces charged with the maintenance of public order so as to ensure proper discharge of their duties and maintenance of discipline among them. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the provisions of the Act were not to ensure proper discharge of the duties and maintenance of discipline among them. He, therefore, submitted that the provisions of the Act and the rules framed thereunder were not protected by Article 33 of the Constitution. Whether particular provisions of the statute ensure the particular objects of the legislation is a matter for legislative judgment. Whether certain provisions fulfil certain objects or not or whether other provisions could have better fulfilled those objects, is a matter on which the legislative wisdom cannot, prima facie, be questioned except on the question of colourable exercise of power. It was contended that under the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, Entries 1 and 2 of List II, namely the State List deals with public order and police forces. Therefore, it was urged that the State Legislature had competence to legislate on public order as well as regarding the police force. The Parliament by pretending to make law so as to ensure proper discharge of duties and maintenance of discipline of those who are charged with maintenance of public order which in fact the provisions did not, cannot usurp that jurisdiction or competency of the State Legislatures. It is, therefore, necessary to examine whether the provisions of the Act can be said to ensure proper discharge of the duties and maintenance of discipline among those who are charged with maintenance of public order. If there is rational nexus between the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder with the purpose stated in the preamble to the Act, then in my opinion, the Act can be said to be to ensure proper discharge of the duties and maintenance of discipline among those who are charged with maintenance of public order. Only to that limited extent there is scope of judicial review of the effect of this legislation, where, however, the legislation is governed by Article 31-C of the Constitution different considerations might apply.

(3.) Section 3 of the Police Forces (Restriction of Bights) Act, 1966, provides as follows :