Appeal No 222 N of 1973
From the Judgment and Order dated 1331972 of the Delhi High Court in Civil Writ No 731 of 1971
MK Dua Aman Vachher and SK Mehta for the Appellants
B Datta Additional Solicitor General GD Gupta and Mr CV Subba Rao for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KHALID J
1
This appeal by certificate is directed against the Judgment of a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in CW No 731 of 1971
The prayer in the Writ Petition is for the issuance of an appropriate writ order or direction declaring a the Police Forces Restriction of Rights Act No 33 of 1966 for short the Act as ultra vires the Constitution b the Police Forces Restriction of Rights Rules 1966 and Police Forces Restriction of Rights Amendment Rules 1970 for short the Rules ultra vires of Act 33 of 1966 and the Constitution of India c that the Circular dated 1st April 1971 as invalid illegal ultra vires null and void and d for a declara tion that the Delhi Police Non Gazetted Karmchari Sangh petitioner No 1 in the Writ Petition is a legally and validly constituted service organisation
350 2
The first appellant is the Non Gazetted Karmachari Sangh for short the Sangh  and the appellant Nos 2 to 7 its members
The High Court dismissed the petition holding that the challenge was not sustainable and that neither the Act nor the Rules violated any provisions of the Constitu tion
The High Court dealt at length with the preliminary objections that a challenge based on the violation of any fundamental right was not permissible in view of the emer gency declared by the President of India in December 1977
This need not detain us now in this Judgment
The appellants  case is that the Act referred above violates Article 191c of the Constitution of India and that the restrictions imposed by it being arbitrary violates Article 14 of the Constitution
The Non Gazetted members of the Delhi Police Force wanted to form an organi sation of their own and for that purpose constituted the Karmachari Union in 1966 and applied for its registration under the Trade Union Act 1926
Initially the registration asked for was declined
Then Act 33 of 1966 was enacted
It came into force on 2nd December 1966
An application for recognition was again made on 9th December 1966
Recogni tion was granted by the Central Government on 12th December 1966
The Non Gazetted members of the Delhi Police Force were permitted to become members of the Sangh
On 12th December 1966 the Central Government made rules under the Act which were amended in December 1970
The Circular in question was issued under these rules
The Circular attempts to derecognise the Sangh
This occassioned the filing of the writ petition
Before considering the rival contentions urged before us it would be useful to refer to the salient features of the Act to appreciate its ambit and the restrictions imposed by its provisions
The Act was enacted to delineate the restrictions imposed of the 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 the proper discharge of their duties  and the mainte nance of discipline among them
The Parliament obviously has this power under Article 33 of the Constitution of India
The provisions of the Act seek to place certain restrictions on members of the police force in exercise of their funda mental rights guaranteed by Article 191c to form Associ ation or Unions
Section 3 of the Act reads as follows 31 No member of a police force shall with out the express sanction of the Central Gov ernment or of the prescribed authority abe a member of or be associated in any way with any trade union labour union political association or with any class of trade unions labour unions or political 351 associations or b be a member of or be associated in any way with any other society institution association or organisation that is not recognised as part of the force of which he is a member or is not of a purely social recretional or religious nature or c communicate with the press or publish or cause to be published any book letter or other document except where such communication or publication is in the bona fide discharge of his duties or is of a purely literary artistic or scientific character or is of a prescribed nature
Explanation If any question arises as to whether any society institution association or organisation is of a purely social recre tional or religious nature under clause b of this subsection the decision of the Central Government thereon shall be final
2 No member of a police force shall partici pate in or address any meeting or take part in any demonstration organised by any body of persons for any political purposes or for such other purposes as may be prescribed
 Section 4 of the Act provides for penalties if Section 3 is contravened by any person
Section 5 gives power to the Central Government by notification in the official gazette to amend the schedule by including therein any other enact ment relating to a force charged with the maintenance of public order or omit therefrom any enactment already speci fied therein
Section 6 gives the rule making power to the Central Government
The only contention that now survives is whether the impugned statute rules and orders are violative of the fights of the appellants guaranteed under Article 191c of the Constitution of India
This appeal could be disposed of by a short Order
Appellants No 2 to 7 are no longer in service
They have been dismissed
As such they do not have the necessary locus standi to sustain this petition
But the appellants  counsel submitted that the first petitioner the Sangh was still interested in pursuing this appeal and that persuaded us to hear the appeal on merits
It is true that recognition was given to the Sangh originally
Subsequently by order dated 1 st April 1971 the Sangh was derecognized
This was pursuant to the amended rules
Rule 3 provided that no member of the police forces shall participate in or address any meeting or take part in any demonstration organised by any body of persons afor the purpose of protesting against any of the provisions of the Act or these rules or any other 352 rules made under the Act or bfor the purpose of protest ing against any disciplinary action taken proposed to be taken against him or against any other member of a police force or cfor any purpose connected with any matter pertaining to his remuneration or other conditions of serv ice or his condition of work or living condition or the remuneration other conditions of any other member or members of a police force Provided that nothing contained in clausec shall preclude a member of a police force from participating in a meeting convened by an association of which he is a member and which has been accorded sanction under sub section 1 of section3 of the Act where such meeting is in pursuance of or for the furtherance of the objects of such associa tion
 The above rules were amended by a notification dated 19th December 1970 the material change for our purpose being an amendment in the proviso to clause c of rule 3
The original proviso to clausec was substituted by another proviso which reads as follows Provided that nothing contained in clause c shall preclude a member of a police force from participating in a meeting i which is convened by an association of police officers of the the same rank of which he is a member and which has been granted recognition under clause b of sub section 1 of section 3 of the Act ii which has been specifically provided for in the articles of association orand has been by general or special order permitted by the Inspector General of Police having regard  to the object of such meeting and other relevant factors and iv which has been convened to consider the agenda circulated to all concerned according to the relevant provisions of the articles of association after giving intimation in ad vance to the  Inspector General of Police or an officer nominated by him Emphasis sup plied
Rule 5 was added to the Rules by virtue of which minutes had to be recorded of the meetings of a recognised associa tion
The Inspector General of Police could send observers by virtue of rule 6 to such meetings
Outsiders were prohib ited from attending the meetings of the association without permission of the Inspector General of Police by Rule 7
Rules 8 9  11 may also be usefully read 353 8
Recognition Members of police force belonging to the same rank desiring to form an association may make an application for the grant of recognition under clause b of sub section 1 of section 3 and such application shall be in writing under the hand of a repre sentation of such association addressed to the Inspector General of Police who shall be the authority to grant refuse or revoke such recognition Provided that before refusing or revoking recognition the Association shall be given a reasonable opportunity of making representation against the proposed action 9
Suspension of recognition The Inspector General of Police may in the interests of the general public or for the maintenance of discipline in the police force and with the prior approval of the Central Government the State Government or as the ease may be the Administrator of the Union Territory suspend the recognition granted under rule 8 for a period not exceeding three months which may be extended for a further period of three months by the Central Government State Government or as the case may be the Administrator of the Union Territory so however that the total period for which such recognition may be suspended shall not in any case exceed six months 11
Special provision regarding recognition already granted Recognition granted prior to the commencement of the Police Forces Restriction of Rights Amendment Rules 1970 to any association the articles of association of which are not in conformity with these rules shall unless the said artides of association are brought in conformity with the provisions of these rules within a period of thirty days stand revoked on the expiry of the said peri od
It is the change effected by the new Proviso to Rule 3c which has come in for attack at the hands of the appel lants
Previously all non gazetted officers of the Delhi Police Department could be members of the Sangh
Now the amended proviso to rule 3c mandates that only members of the Police Force having the same rank could constitute themselves into one Association
The effect of this amended rule is that the Sangh will have to be composed of various splinter associations consisting of members holding differ ent ranks
This according to the appellants violates not only Article 191c which protects freedom of association but also the provisions of the Act
354 The immediate provocation for filing the writ petition was the Circular by which the recognition granted to the Sangh was revoked
The operative part of the Circular reads as follows Rule 11 of the Police Force Restriction of Rights Amendment Rules 1970 published vide extraordinary Gazette of India notifica tion No GSR 2049 dated 19 12 70 lays down that recognition granted prior to the com mencement of these rules to any association the articles of which are not in conformity with these rules shall unless the articles are brought in conformity with the provisions of these rules within a period of 30 days stand revoked on the expiry of the said period
Whereas the Constitution of the Delhi Police NonGazetted Karmchari Sangh which was granted recognition vide Government of India Ministry of Home Affairs letter No87066 PI dated 12 12 66 and which contains a number of provisions not in con formity with the above rules the recognition already granted to the Delhi Police Non Gazet ted Karmachari Sangh stands revoked
This may be brought to the notice of a11 ranks
A copy of this circular may be published in the Delhi Police Gazette
 The appellants  counsel Submits that recognition of the association carries with it the right to continue the asso ciation as such
It is a right flowing from the fact of recognition
To derecognise the association in effect of fends against the freedom of association
It is urged that once the Government had granted recognition to the Sangh and approved its constitution neither the Parliament nor any delegated authority can take away that recognition or dic tate to the association who could be its members
The right available to the members of the association at the commence ment should continue as such without any hindrance
Before considering the questions of law raised by the appellants  counsel with reference to the decided cases it would be useful to bear in mind the fact that this associa tion consists of members of Police Force who by virtue of this fact alone stands on a different footing from other associations
The Constitution of India has taken care to lay down limitations on such associations from exercising rights under Article 191c
Article 33 read with 355 Article 194 of the Constitution offers an effective reply to the contention raised by the appellants
Article 33 reads as follows Parliament may by law determine to what extent any of the rights conferred by this Part shall in their application to the mem bers of the Armed Forces or the Forces charged with the maintenance of public order be restricted or abroagated so as to ensure the proper discharge of their duties and the maintenance of discipline among them
 Article 194 reads as follows Nothing in sub clause c of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes or prevent the State from making any law imposing in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India or public order or morality reasonable restric tions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub clause
 That the Sangh and its members come within the ambit of Article 33 cannot be disputed
The provisions of the Act and rules taking away or abridging the freedom of association have been made strictly in conformity with Article 33
The right under Article 191c is not absolute
Article 194 specifically empowers the State to make any law to fetter abridge or abrogate any of the rights under Article 191c in the interest of public order and other considerations
Thus the attack against the Act and rules can be successful ly met with reference to these two Articles as members of the Police Force like the appellants herein are at a less advantageous position curtailment of whose fights under Article 191c comes squarely within Article 33 in the interest of discipline and public order
This conclusion of ours is sufficient to dispose of this appeal
However we will deal with the submissions made before us for the com pleteness of the Judgment
The scope of Article 191c came up for considera tion before this Court in Damyanti Naranga vs The Union of India  Ors  The question related to the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan a Society registered under the 
The Parliament enacted the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Act under which outsiders were per mitted to become members of the Sammelan without the voli tion of the original members
This was challenged and this Court held that any law altering the composition of the Association compulsorily will be a breach of the right to form the association because it violated the composite right of forming an association and the right to continue it as the original members desired it
356 10
Here we have an entirely different situation since we are dealing with a group distinct in its nature and composition from others
Here we are dealing with a force that is invested with powers to maintain public order
Article 33 enables Parliament to restrict or abrogate the fundamental rights in their relation to the Armed Forces including Police Force
In Ous Kutilingal Achudan Nair  Ors vs Union India  Ors  this Court had to consider two questions whether the employees of the defence establishment such as cooks barbers and like civil employees were members of the Armed Forces and if so whether they could be validly deprived of their right to form unions in violation of Article 191c
This Court held that they fell within the category of members of the Armed Forces and that the Central Government was competent by notification to make rules restricting or curtailing their right to form associations Article 191c not withstanding
In Raghubar Dayal Jai Prakash vs The Union of India and Ors  this Court had to deal with this question in relation to the functions of an incorporated body the objects of which were interalia to regulate forward transactions in the sale and purchase of various commodities Freedom of association is a fundamental right
It was contended that if a law regulated the recognition of an association under certain conditions subject to which alone recognition could be accorded or continued such conditions were bad
This Court had to consider whether the freedom of association implied or involved a guaranteed right to recognition also
The contention was that if the object of an association was lawful no restriction could be placed upon it except in the interest of public order and that freedom to form an association carried with it the right to determine its internal arrangements also
Repelling this contention this Court held that restrictions cannot be imposed by statute for the purpose of regulating control of such associations
While the right to freedom of association is fundamental recognition of such association is not a fundamental right and the Parliament can by law regulate the working of such associations by imposing conditions and restrictions on such functions
It cannot be disputed that the fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 191c can be claimed by Government servants
A Government servant may not lose its right by joining Government service
Article 33 which confers power on the Parliament to abridge or abrogate such rights in their application to the Armed Forces and other similar forces shows that such rights are available to all citizens including Government servants
But it is however necessary to remember that Article 19 confers fundamental rights which are not absolute but are subject to reasonable restrictions
What has happened in this case is only to impose reasonable restrictions in the interest of discipline and public order
357 13
The validity of the impugned rule has to be judged keeping in mind the character of the employees we are deal ing with
It is true that the rules impose a restriction on the right to form association
It virtually compels a Gov ernment servant to withdraw his membership of the associa tion as soon as recognition accorded to the said association is withdrawn or if after the association is formed no recognition is accorded to it within six months
In other words the right to form an association is conditioned by the existence of the recognition of the said association by the Government
If the association affairs recognition and continues to enjoy it Government servants can become mem bers of the said association if the said association does not secure recognition from the Government or recognition granted to it is withdrawn Government servants must cease to be members of the said association
That is the plain effect of the impugned rule
These rules are protected by Articles 33 and 194 of the Constitution
Besides it is settled law that the right guaranteed by Article 191c to form associations does not involve a guaranteed right to recognition also
The main grievance of the appellants is that the first appellant Sangh when recognised comprised of Police Officers of various ranks the common factor being that all its members were non gazetted police officers
This composi tion was changed by the impugned rules
Not only is the composition changed the entire Sangh stood derecognised for failure to alter its constitution complying with the new rules
This attack cannot be sustained
Section 3 of the Act permits the rule making authority to define any group of Police Force that can form an Association
It also gives power to prescribe the nature of activity that each  such association of members can indulge in
It therefore fol lows that if rules can be framed defining this aspect a rule can also be framed enabling the authorities to revoked or cancel recognition once accorded if the activities offended the rules
The further grievance of the appellant is that non gazetted officers who once formed one block have been fur ther divided with reference to ranks and that this again is an inroad into their right under Article 191c
This submission has been already met
Besides this classifica tion based on ranking has its own rationale behind it
We are dealing with a Force in which discipline is the most important pre requisite
Non gazetted officers consist of men of all ranks the lowest cadre and officers who are superior to them
If all the nongazetted officers are grouped together irrespective of rank it is bound to affect discipline
It was perhaps realising the need to preserve discipline that the changes in the rule were effected
We are not satisfied that there has been violation of any law in doing so
358 On a careful consideration of the questions involved in this appeal we hold that the High Court was right in its decision
We accordingly dismiss the appeal
SR Appeal dismissed


Summary:
The non gazetted members of the Delhi police Force wanted to form an association of their own and for that purpose constituted the Karmachari Union in 1966 and applied for its registration under the Trade Union Act 1926 and this was refused
After the coming into effect from 2121966 of the Police Force Restriction of Rights Act 33 of 1966 another application for recognition was again made on 9121966 which was granted on 12121966
The non gazetted members of the Delhi Police Force were permitted to become members of the Sangh
The Police Force Restriction of Rights Rules 1966 made by the Central Government on 12121966 were amended by the Amendment Rules of 1970
Rule 11 thereof provides for revocation of the recognition grant ed to an association if the said associations articles are not in conformity with the Rules or are not brought in conformity with the provisions of the amended Rules within a period of 30 days
Since the Articles of Association of the appellant Sangh contained a number of provisions not in conformity with the rules and since the Sangh failed to bring the same in conformity by a circular dated 141971 the recognition granted was revoked
The appellants there fore filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging the constitutional validity of the Act Rules and the impugned circular
The writ petition having been rejected the appellants have come by way of special leave
Dismissing the appeal the Court 348 HELD 11 The Police Force Restriction of Rights Act 33 of 1966 the Police Force Restriction of Rights Rules 1966 as amended by the 1970 Rules and the circular dated 141971 are all constitutionally valid
They do not offend the provisions of Articles 14 and 191c of the Constitu tion
350 C 355 E F 12 The right under Article 191c is not absolute
Article 194 specifically empowers the State to make any law to fetter abridge or abrogate any of the fights under Article 191c in the interest of public order and other considerations
While the right to freedom of association is fundamental recognition of such association is not a funda mental fights and the Parliament can by law regulate the working of such associations by imposing conditions and restrictions on such functions
355 E 356 F 13 The fundamental fights guaranteed by Article 191c can be claimed by Government servants
A government servant may not lose his right by joining government serv ice
Article 33 which confers power on the Parliament to abridge or abrogate such rights in their application to the Armed Forces and other similar forces shows that such fights are available to all citizens including government serv ants
What has happened in this case is only to impose reasonable restrictions in the interest of discipline and public order
356 G H 14 Rule 11 read with Rule 3c of the Amended Police Force Restriction of Rights Rules 1966 has to be judged keeping in mind the character of the employees to whom it applies
It is true that the rules impose a restriction on the right to form association
It virtually compels a gov ernment servant to withdraw his membership of the associa tion as soon as recognition accorded to the said association is withdrawn or if after the association is formed no recognition is accorded to it within six months
In other words the right to form an association is conditioned by the existence of the recognition of the said association by the government
If the association obtains recognition and continues to enjoy it government servants can become mem bers of the said association if the said association does not secure recognition from the government or recognition granted to it is withdrawn government servants must cease to be members of the said association
That is the plain effect of the impugned role
These rules are protected by Articles 33 and 194 of the Constitution
Besides it is settled law that the right guaranteed by Article 191c to form associations does not involve a guaranteed right to recognition also
357 A C 15 Section 3 of the Police Force Restriction of Rights Act permits the rule making authority to define any group of Police Force that can form an Association
It also gives power to prescribe the nature of activity that each such association of members can indulge in
It therefore follows that if rules can be 349 framed defining this aspect a rule can also be framed enabling the authorities to revoke or cancel recognition once accorded if the activities offended the rules
Besides the classification based on ranking has its own rationale behind it
The Court is dealing with a Force in which disci pline is the most important prerequisite
Non gazetted officers consist of men of all ranks the lowest cadre and officers who are superior to them
If all the non gazetted officers are grouped together irrespective of rank it is bound to affect discipline
It was perhaps realising the need to preserve discipline that the changes in the rule were effected
357E G  Damyanti Naranga vs The Union of India  Ors   Ous Kutilingal Achudan Nair  Ors vs Union of India  Ors   and Raghubar Dayal Jai Prakash vs The Union of India  Ors  fol lowed