9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Constitutional validity of Rule 4-A of the Bihar Government Servants' Conduct Rules, 1956. 2. Whether the rule infringes on the rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution of India. 3. Whether government servants are entitled to the protections of fundamental rights guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution. 4. The scope of permissible restrictions on the rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b). Detailed Analysis: 1. Constitutional Validity of Rule 4-A: The primary issue in this case was the constitutional validity of Rule 4-A, which prohibits government servants from participating in any demonstration or resorting to any form of strike in connection with their conditions of service. The rule was challenged on the grounds that it infringed upon the rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution of India. 2. Infringement of Rights under Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b): The appellants argued that Rule 4-A interfered with their right to freedom of speech and expression (Article 19(1)(a)) and their right to assemble peacefully without arms (Article 19(1)(b)). The High Court of Patna had previously held that these rights did not include the right to strike or demonstrate for government servants. However, the High Court also considered the validity of the rule assuming these rights were included and upheld the rule as reasonable restrictions. The Supreme Court, in its analysis, agreed that a demonstration is a form of speech or expression and can fall within the ambit of Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b). The Court noted that demonstrations could be peaceful and orderly, thus falling within the scope of these constitutional protections. However, the rule imposed a blanket ban on all forms of demonstrations, including peaceful ones, which could not be justified as a reasonable restriction under Article 19(2) and 19(3). 3. Entitlement of Government Servants to Fundamental Rights: The Court rejected the argument that government servants, by virtue of their employment, were excluded from the protection of fundamental rights guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution. Article 33, which allows for the restriction of fundamental rights for members of the armed forces and forces charged with the maintenance of public order, was cited to support the view that other government servants are entitled to fundamental rights unless specifically restricted by law. 4. Permissible Restrictions on Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b): The Court examined whether the restrictions imposed by Rule 4-A could be justified under Article 19(2) and 19(3), which allow for reasonable restrictions in the interests of public order. The Court referred to the precedent set in Ram Manohar Lohia's case, which clarified that restrictions must have a proximate and reasonable nexus to public order. The Court found that Rule 4-A's blanket ban on all demonstrations, regardless of their nature, did not meet this criterion and was therefore unconstitutional. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in part, declaring that Rule 4-A, in its current form, was violative of the appellants' rights under Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) and should be struck down. However, the prohibition on strikes was upheld as there is no fundamental right to resort to a strike. The Court emphasized that while government servants are entitled to fundamental rights, their official responsibilities may impose certain limitations on the exercise of these rights. The appeal was allowed in part, with no order as to costs.
|
