HARDIT SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Some of the dark and noxious fumes of McCarthvism which at one time threatened to destroy all decency and freedom but which, happily, is now at a discount in the very country of its birth, have floated across the ocean and somehow found their way into the Indian horizon to pollution the free and generous atmosphere assured to Indian citizens by the proclamations of "Liberty of thought, expression, belief " fifth and worship". "Equality of Opportunity" and "Fraternity assuring the dignity of the individual" in the preamble to the Constitution of India. Let me say we do not want it and we will not have it. Let me say we want the air of India to be pure, even as a famous English Judge once said 'the air of England is too pure for any slave to breathe; let the black go free'.

(2.) Two teachers, Hardit Singh and Lal Singh, appellants in the two second appeals, with about four years' service to their credit, were thrown out of Government employment because the police reported, of course, behind their backs, that their 'past political activities and propensities' rendered them unsuitable for employment under the Government. In the case of Hardit Singh the police report, the whole of it, which was addressed to the Assistant District Inspector of Schools, was as follows :

(3.) The police reports are seen not to be factual reports. They are just conclusions or opinions of police officers. They refer to no facts and to no incidents. They do not particularise any activity or even any party. They are couched on the vaguest possible language. That is deliberate. The reports appear to be repetitions of a formula designed by some high officer of the police. Political activities and propensities, indeed. What does one understand by these words ? Do they mean that these persons have perpetrated or are expected to perpetrate dark and violent deeds ? Do they mean that they belong to banned, supversive, political organisations ? Do the mean that they are organisers and office bearers of political parties ? Do they mean that they attended, as thousands of citizens do, some public meeting or rally addressed by politicians? Do they merely mean that they did not actively support the party in power and thereby incurred the wrath of some High political echelon ? Do they mean that they do not believe, like money drawing-room political philosophers, in the ideology or the methods of the party, for the time being, in power ? What is their unpardonable sin that they are denied entry into public service ? The police reports are totally silent. Enough, they think, if the 'mantram' is chanted. That is hardly right. Hegde. J. speaking for the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Bakhtawar Singh, 1972 S.L.R. 85- observed. ...The finding of the Minister that Shri Bakhtwar Singh was taking part in politics is a vague finding Politics is a word of wide import. By merely saying that he was taking part in politics nothing concrete is conveyed or established.