Summarize the following court judgment. ion No. 91 of 1964. Petition under article 32 of the Constitution of India for the enforcement of fundamental rights and Civil Appeal No. 358 of 1966. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated September 9	 1963 of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 1885 of 1962. J.P. Goyal and Raghunath Singh	 for the petitioner (in W.P. No. 91 of 1964). A.K. Sen	 J. P. Goyal and Raghunath Singh	 for the appel lants (in C.A. No. 358/66). B.Sen and section P. Nayar	 for respondent No. 1 (in W.P. No. 91 of 1964) and respondents Nos. 3 and 4 (in C.A. No. 358 of 1966). N.N. Sharma	 for respondent No. 2 (in W.P. No. 91/64) and respondents Nos. 16 and 17 (in C.A. No. 358/66). 843 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Bbargava	 J. This writ petition and the appeal challenge the validity of the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Act No. 13 of 1962 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The facts leading up to the passing of this enactment are that	 in the year 1910	 some eminent educationists assembled at Banaras and founded an Association for the development of Hindi and its propagation throughout the country. This Association was named as the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan. On the 8th January	 1914	 it was registered as a Society under the No. 21 of 1860	 with Head Office at Allahabad	 under the name of Hindi Sahitya Sammelan. The rules and bye laws of the Society laid down the objects of this Association and the manner of its working. It had three classes of members	 viz.	 special members (Vishisht Sadasya)	 permanent members (Sthayi Sadasya)	 and ordinary members (Sadharan Sadasya). Under the bye laws	 apart from the original members constituting the Society	 further mem bers could be admitted under these three classifications on being elected by the working committee of the Society. Under the Rules and bye laws of the Society	 other bodies could be constituted for carrying on activities of the Society. These included a Governing Body	 a Working Committee	 a Hindi University Council	 Literary Council (Sahitya Samiti)	 Library Committee	 Parchar Samiti and Rashtriaya Bhasha Prachar Samiti. Through the agencies of these various Committees	 the Society carried on the work of development and propagation of Hindi	 of spreading the use of Devnagri scrip	 of holding examinations	 and of confer ring Degrees for proficiency in Hindi. The Society owned landed properties and buildings at Allahabad as well as at some other places such as Warding	 and was holding considerable funds for carrying on its activities. The Society worked very successfully for a number of years. It appears that in the year 1950	 some differences arose between the members of the Society	 and attempt was made to alter the constitution	 of the Society. while one section wanted the alterations	 another section was opposed to it. This resulted in litigation. Three different suits were instituted in the civil Courts at Allahabad in this connection and injunctions were sought by one party against the other. Ultimately	 the Court appointed a Receiver. In view of these circumstances	 the U.P. Legislature passed an Act known as the U.P. Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Act No. 36 of 1956	 under which a statutory body was created under the name of Hindi Sahitya Sammelan	 and the word "Sammelan" was defined as referring to the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan constitu ted under the Act. Under that Act. Under that Act	 the mana 844 gement and properties of the original Hindi Sahitya Sammelan	 which was a registered Society	 were to be taken over by the new statutory Sammelan. That Act was	 however	 declared void by the Allahabad High Court on the ground that Act had made the original Sammelan cease to exist and provided for the constitution of a new Sammelan under its terms in which the members of the original Sammelan had no say	 so that Act infringed the right of the members of the original Sammelan of forming an association guaranteed by article 19 (1) (c) of the Constitution. It was further held that Act was not saved under article 19(4) of the Constitution. Thereafter	 the present Act	 now challenged in this writ petition and the appeal	 was passed by Parliament under Entry 63 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. The Act itself	 in section 2	 contained the necessary declaration to give legislative competence to Parliament under that Entry. The Act first contained in section 2 a declaration in the following words : "Whereas the objects of the institution known as the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan which has its head office at Allahabad are such as to make the instituation one of national importance	 it is hereby declared that the institution known as the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan is an institution of national importance. " Having declared this institution as an institution of national importance	 th. 	 Act proceeded to define "Sammelan" as meaning the institution known as the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan incorporated under this Act	 while the word "Society" was defined to mean "the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan which has its head office at Allahabad and is registered under the ." Under section 4(1) of the Act	 the Sannnelan was constituted which was to consist of the first members of the Sammelan and all persons who may hereafter become members thereof in accordance with the rules made in that behalf. This statutory Sammelan was constituted as a body corporate by the name of the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan	 and under sub section (2) of section 4	 it was to have perpetual succession and a common seal with power	 subject to the provision of the. Act	 to acquire	 hold and dispose of property and to contract and to sue and be sued by that name. The Head Office of the Sammelan was to be at Allahabad. Under subs.(4) of section the first members of the Sammelan were to consist of persons who	 immediately before the appointed day. (a) were special members (Vishisht Sadasya) of the Society; 8 45 (b) (were. life members (Sthayi Sadasya) of the Society. (c) had been Presidents of the Society; or (d) were awarded the Mangla Prasad Paritoshik by the Society. This sub section (4) of section 4 was amended retrospectively with effect from the date that the Act came into force by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan (Amendment) Act No. 1 of 1963	 and the first members of the Sammelan were	 under this amendment	 declared to be (a) all persons who	 immediately before the appointed day	 were members of the Society; (b) all persons who	 before that day	 had been Presidents of the Society; and (c) all persons who	 before that day	 were awarded the Mangla Prasad Paritoshik by the Society. It is not necessary to give in detail the other provisions of the Act	 except that it may be mentioned that the Act provided for vesting of all property	 movable or immovable	 or	 belonging to the Society in the Sammelan	 transferring all rights and Liabilities of the Society to the Sammelan	 converting reference to the Society in any law to the Sammelan	 and other similar necessary provisions. The Act itself did not make any provision for the future membership of the Sammelan; but	 under section 12(1) (a)	 the first Governing Body of the Sammelan was directed to make rules in respect of matters relating to membership	 including qualifications and disqualifications For membership of the Sammelan. The first Governing Body was to be constituted under section 8 and was to consist of a Chairman	 a Secretary and 13 other members. This Governing Body was to be constituted by a notification in the Official Gazette by the Central Government. The thirteen members were to be chosen as follows : (i) one member to represent the Ministry of the Central Government dealing with education; (ii)one member to represent the Ministry of the Central Government dealing with finance; (iii)not more than three members from among the former Presidents of the Society; and (iv)the remaining number from among persons who are	 in the opinion of the Central Govern 846 ment	 eminent in the field of Hindi language or Hindi literature. It was this first Governing Body which was to make rules on all matters relating to membership of the Sammelan under section 12 (1 )(a) of the Act. These rules were not have effect until they were approved by the Central. Government and were published by the first Governing Body in such manner as the Central Government may	 by order	 direct. A copy of the rules was also to be laid before each House of Parliament. Counsel for respondent No. 1 placed before us a copy of the rules which	 according to him	 have been made by the first Governing Body with the approval of the Government and have been published as required. The Rules come into force on 1st of February	 1971. The petition under article 32	 and the petition under article 226	 out of which the civil appeal arises	 were both moved much earlier and long before these Rules were framed. These petitions challenged the validity of the Act	 without taking into account the actual Rules framed	 mainly on the ground that he Act had interfered with the right of the petitioners to form association Linder article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution and was not protected by article 19(4). In the petition before the Allahabad High Court	 the Court held that	 since all the members of the Society had also become members of the Sammelan under the Act	 there was no infringement of the right to form association	 so that the Act could not be declared invalid on that ground. The writ petition in this Court has been filed by only one member of the Society	 while the petition in the High Court and the appeal against the judgment of the High Court	 which is before us	 were filed by the original Hindi Sahitya Sammelan as one party and 72 members of that Sammelan joining as other petitioning parties. 'In the civil appeal	 thus	 the grievance that the Act ha$ infringed the fundamental right has been put forward both by the Society itself as well as by 72 of its members	 including members of the Working Committee and the Governing Body of the society. They have all come up to this Court against the decision of the High Court in this appeal by special leave. In the counter affidavits filed on behalf of the respondents in the writ petition before the High Court as well as in the writ petition in this Court	 the position taken up was that the Act	 in fact	 does not deprive the Society and its members of any rights which they had under the constitution of the Society and did not interfere with their right of association inasmuch as all the members of the Society have been included as members of the Sammelan under the Act. The High Court	 in fact	 dismissed the writ petition on accepting this submission put forward on behalf of the respondents. In the arguments before us	 learned counsel for 847 respondent No. 1	 however	 took UP a different position and urged that the Act keeps the Society in tact as it was	 where a new Sammelan is constituted under the Act for the purpose of managing the institution which has been declared as an institution of national importance. He put this aspect of the case in the forefront	 but	 in the alternative	 he also argued the case on the basis of the position taken up in the counter affidavits in the High Court and in this Court as mentioned above. We consider it convenient to first deal with the case as was specifically put forward in the counter affidavits. In these counter affidavits	 the position taken up is that	 having declared the old Hindi Sahitya Sammelan	 which was a Society registered under the 	 as an insti tution of national importance	 Parliament has proceeded to legislate in respect of it under Entry 63 of List I of the Seventh Schedule in order that its administration may not suffer as a result of the quarrels that were going on inter se between the members of the Society. It was for this purpose that a first Governing Body was constituted to take over the management temporarily. The Act was designed to reconstitute the Sammelan in such manner that it could work successfully and without difficulties and	 in making provision for this purpose	 all members of the old Society were included as members of the Sammelan	 so that their right of forming association may not be taken away from them. The Society was never dissolved; instead of the Society remaining a body registered under the 	 it was converted into a statutory Sammelan under the Act. It	 however	 appears on examination of the provisions of the Act that the Sammelan under the Act is composed not only of persons	 who were members of the Society	 but of others who have been given the right to be members of the Sammelan without the consent of the preexisting members. Under section 4(4) itself	 as retrospectively amended in 1963	 apart from persons	 who were members of the Society	 others	 who have been made members of the Sammelan	 are all persons who	 before that day	 had been Presidents of the Society and all persons who	 before that day	 were awarded the Mangla Prasad Paritoshik by the Society. These members have been added without any option being available to the existing members of the Society to elect or refuse to elect them as members which was the right they possessed under the constitution of the Society itself. Further	 under section 12 (1) (a)	 very wide powers were given to the first Governor Body to make rules in respect of matters relating to membership	 including qualifications and disqualifications for membership of the Sammelan. Under this power	 the rules framed could make 10 L1100 SupCI71 848 provision for admission of persons as members whom the original members of the Society may never have liked to admit in their Society. The number of such new members could even be so large as to leave the original members in a small minority with the result that those members could become totally ineffective in the Society. Even in the Rules actually framed	 there is provision for admission of members under various classes. In addition to the persons mentioned in section 4(4) of the Act	 Rule 6 proVides for membership of persons who may become Sabhapatis of the Sammelan for any annual session subsequent to the Act coming into force	 and persons who may be awarded Mangala Prasad Paritoshik subsequent to the Act coming into force. Under Rules 7	 8	 and 9	 new Vishisht Sadasyas	 Sthayi Sadasyas	 and Sadharan Sadasyas can be admitted to the membership of the Sammelan on payment of Rs. 1	000/ or Rs. 300/ 	 as the case may be. This admission to membership	 according to the Rules	 will be made by the new Karya Samiti to be elected under the Rules and not by the Working Committee of the original members of the Association. Further	 under section 7(2) of the Act	 the Governing Body of the new Sammelan is to consist of such number of persons	 not exceeding 55	 as the Central Government may from time to time determine; and out of these	 a number not exceeding 7 are to be nominated by the	 Central Government from among educations of repute and eminent Hindi scholars. These 7 nominees are to be chosen by the Central Government and on becoming	 members of the Governing Body	 under Rule. 11 they become members of the Sammelan. Under Rule 10	 educational institutions can also be admitted as Sanstha Sadasyas of the Sammelan by the new Karya Samiti and	 thereupon	 a representative of each of such institution has right to participate in ' proceedings of the Sammelan	 exercising all the rights of a member. It will	 thus	 be seen that the Sammelan	 which has come into existence under the Act	 is not identical with the Sammelan which was registered as a Society under% the . Certain persons have been added as members by the Act and by the Rules. Admission of future members is no longer at the choice of the original members who ' had formed the Asso ciation	Persons	 in whose admission as members the members of the	 Society	 had no hand	 can become members and get the right of associating with them in the Sammelan	 without the original members having any right to obecti. this is clear interference with the right to form an association which had been exercised by the members of the Society by forming the Society with its constitution	 under which they were members and future members could only come in as a result of their choice by being elected by their Working Committee. We are unable to agree with the High Court that the new Sammelan	 as constituted under the Act	 849 is identical with the Society and that all the rights of forming an association	 which were being exercised by members of the Society	 have been kept in tact under the Act. It was argued that the right guaranteed by Article 19 (1 (c) is only to form an association and	 consequently	 any regulation of the affairs of the Association	 after it has been formed	 will not amount to a breach of that right. It is true that it has been held by this Court that	 after an Association has been formed and the right under article 19 (1) (c) has been exercised by the members forming it	 they have no right to claim that its activities must also be permitted to be carried on in the manner they desire. Those cases are	 however	 inapplicable to the present case. The Act does not merely regulate the administration of the affairs of the Society	 what it does is to alter the composition of the Society itself as we have indicated above. The result of this change in composition is that the members	 who voluntarily formed the Association	 are now compelled to act in that Association with other members who have been imposed as members by the Act and in whose admission to membership	 they had no say. Such alteration in the composition of the Association itself clearly interferes with the right to continue to function as members of the Association which was voluntarily formed by the original founders. The right to form an association	 in our opinion	 necessarily	 implies that the persons forming the Association have also the right to continue to be associated with only those whom they voluntarily	 admit in the Associate on. Any law	 by which members are introduced in the voluntary Association without any option being given to the members to keep them out	 or any law which. takes away the membership of those who have voluntarily Joined it	 will be a law violating the right to form an association. If we were to accept the submission that the right guaranteed by article 19 ( 1 ) (c) is confined to the initial stage of forming an Association and does not protect the right to continue the Association with the membership	 either chosen by the founders or regulated by rules made by the Association itself	 the right would be meaningless because	 as soon as an Association is formed	 a law may be passed interfering with its composition. 	 so that the Association formed may not be able to function at all. The right can be effective only if it is held to include within it the right to continue the	 Association with its composition as voluntarily agreed upon by the persons forming the Association. This aspect was recognised by this Court though not in plain words	 in the case of O. K. Ghosh and Another vs E. X. Joseph("). The Court	 in that case. was considering the validity of Rule 4 (B) of the Central Civil Service			 (Conduct) Rules	 1955	 which laid down that: (1)[1963] Supp 3 S.C.R. 789. 850 "No Government servant shall join or continue to be a member of any Service Association of Government servants (a)which has not	 within a period of six months from its formation	 obtained the recognition of the Government under the Rules prescribed in that behalf; or (b)recognition in respect of which has been refused or withdrawn by the Government under the said Rules. " This Court held: "It is not disputed that the fundamental rights guaranteed by article 19 can be claimed by Government servants. article 33 which confers power on the Parliament to modify the rights in their application to the Armed Forces	 clearly brings out the fact that all citizens including Government servants	 are entitled to Claim the rights guaranteed by article 19. Thus	 the validity of the impugned rule has to be judged on the basis that the respondent and his co employees are entitled to form Associations or Unions. It is clear that Rule 4 B imposes a restriction on this right. It virtually compels a Government servant to withdraw his membership of the Service Association of Government Servants as soon as recognition accorded to the said citation is withdrawn or if	 after the Association is formed	 no recognition is Aaccorded 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 the recognition and continues to enjoy it	 Government servants can become members of the said Association; if the Association does not secure recognition from the Government or recognition granted to it is withdrawn	 Government servants must cease to be the members of the said Association. That is the plain effect of the impugned rule. " The Court in the above passage	 thus	 accepted the principle that the Government servants	 who may have formed an Association. could not	 be compelled to resign from it by imposition of a condition of recognition of this Association by the Government and that if the Government servants are required to cease to be members that would be a violation of the right under article 19 (1) (c). The Court	 of course	 in that case	 further proceeded 'to examine whether such a restriction on the right could be justified under 851 article 19(4) or not. That case	 thus	 supports our view that the right to form an Association includes the right to its continuance and any law altering the composition of the Association compulsorily will be a breach of the right to form the Association. This Court had also proceeded on the same basis in the case of State of Madras vs V. G. Row(1). Though this aspect was not clearly brought out in the judgment	 the point	 which came up for consideration	 was decided on the basis that persons forming	 an Association had a right under article 19 (1) (c) to see that the composition of the Association continues as voluntarily agreed to by them. That decision was given in an appeal from a judgment of the High Court of Madras reported in V. G. Row	v. The State of Madras(2). In the High Court	 this principle was clearly formulated by Rajamannar	 C.J.	 in the following words : "The word "form" therefore	 must refer not only to the initial commencement of the association	 but also to the continuance of the association as such. " The Act	 insofar as it interferes with the composition of them Society in constituting the Sammelan	 therefore	 violates the right of the original members of the Society to form an association guaranteed under article 19(1) (c). Article 19(4)	 on the face of it	 cannot be called in aid to claim validity for the Act. Under article 19(4)	 reasonable restrictions can be imposed only in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India	 or in the interests of public order or morality. It has not been contended on behalf of the respondent	 nor could it be contended that this alteration of the constitution of the Society in the manner laid down by the Act was. in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India	 or in	 the interests of public order or morality. Not being protected under article 19(4)	 if must be held that the provision contained	 in the Act for reconstituting the Society into the Sammelan is	 void. Once that section is declared void	 the whole Act becomes. ineffective inasmuch as the formation of the new Sammelan is the very basis for all the other provisions contained in the Act. In view of this position emerging in the course of argu ments	 Mr. B. Sen put forward an entirely different and alter native case before us which we have mentioned earlier. position he took up was that the Act nowhere specifically lays. down that the Society small stand dissolved	 while it does constitute a new Sammelan. According to him	 therefore	 it should (1) ; (2) A.I.R. 1951 Mad. 852 be inferred that	 while the Society still continues to exist in its original form	 the law has brought into existence a new Sammelan to which all the functions	 properties	 etc. of the Society have passed under the Act. There are three reasons why this alternative submission cannot be accepted as ensuring the validity 	of the Act. The first is that the specific case taken by the respondents has been that the Act reconstitutes the Society and does not create a separate and indepedent body in the form of a new Sammelan. Secondly	 even if it be accepted that a new Sammelan has been constituted by the Act	 the question will 	arise of the Legislative competence of Parliament to pass such :a law. Constitution of Societies is under List 11 of the Seventh Schedule. Parliament purported to exercise legislative power under Entry 63 of List I on the basis of a declaration that the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan	 Allahabad was an institution of national importance. The institution that was declared was the Society itself. It was not a case where the Society could be distinguished from some other institution which might have been declared as an institution of national importance There can	 of course	 be cases where a Society may be running a college	 a school or some other like institution	 in which case Parliament may declare that particular institution as of national importance	 without declaring the Society as such In the present case	 what section 2 of the Act did was to declare the Society itself as an institution of national importance	 and	 consequently	 Parliament became competent to legislate in respect of the Society. On the interpretation now sought to	 be put forward	 the Act keeps that Society in tact	 but deprives it of all its functions and properties and transfers them to 'a newly constituted body	 viz.	 the Sammelan	 as defined under the Aet. This Sammelan is itself a body corporate	 and that Sammelan has never been declared as an institution of national importance. The only institutaion that was declared as of national importance was the Society which	 of course	 earlier	 carried the same name as the new Sammelan. Parliament was	 therefore	 not competent to legislate in respect of this newly constituted Sammelan which	 at no stage	 had been declared as an institution of national importance. The third reason why this submission must be rejected	 is that	 if we were to hold that Parliament pased this Act so as to transfer all the properties and assets of the Society to the Sammelan	 the Act would contravene article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution. On this interpretation	 what the Act purports to do is to take away all the properties of the Society	 leaving the Society as an existing body	 and give them to the new Sammelan. This Sammelan is a new	 separate and distinct legal entity from the Society. The Society is	 thus ' deprived of all its properties by the Act. Such a law depriving the Society of its properties al 8 5 3 together cannot be held to be a reasonable restriction in the public interest on the right of the Society to hold the property. The property	 under section 5 of the 	 vested in the Governing Body of the Society. The members of the Governing Body	 therefore had the right to hold the property under article 19(1)(f) and they having been deprived of that property have rightly approached the Courts for redress of their grievance. In this connection counsel for the respondents relied on decision of this Court in The Board of Trustees	 Ayurvedic and Unnanii Tibia College	 Delhi vs The State of Delhi and Another(1)	 where the Board of Trustees of the Ayurvedic and Unani Tibbit College	 Delhi was dissolved by the Tibbia College Act	 1952	 and the property	 which had vested in the Board of Trustees	 passed to the newly constituted Board under the impugned Act. The Court held that there was no violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed by article 19(1)(f) or article 31 That decision	 however	 proceeded on the basis that the property of the original Society registered under the had vested in the Board of Trustees which had been dissolved and the property	 thereafter	 did not vest in the members of the Society in view of the provisions of the Act of 1860. In these circumstances	 it was held that no one could complain that his right to property under article 31 or his right to hold the property under article 19 (1) (f) had been violated by the impugned Act. In the present case	 the applicability of article 19(1)(f) is being considered by us on the assumption that the old Society still exists as it was and	 yet all its properties have been transferred to the Sammelan. If the Society still exists	 so does its Governing Body in whom the property of the Society vested. The Act	 thus	 deprives the members of the Governing Body of the property which still continued to vest in them in spite of the passing of the Act. This total deprivation of property	 instead of regulating the management of the affairs of the Society or its properties	 cannot clearly be justified as a reasonable restriction in public interest. It is true that	 at the time when the Act was passed	 litigation was going on between the members of the Society	 and the affairs of the Society were probably in a mess. The remedy	 however	 could not lie in depriving the Society of its property altogether. Reasonable restrictions could have been imposed so as to ensure the proper preservation of the property of the Society and its proper management. If the law is passed not merely for ensuring proper management and administration of the property	 but for totally depriving the persons	 in whom the property vested	 of their (1) [1962] Suppl. I S.C.R. 156. 854 right to hold the property	 the law cannot be justified as a reasonable restriction under article 19(5). Consequently	 even on this alternative position taken up by counsel for the respondents	 the Act cannot be held to be valid. As a result	 the petition and the appeal are both allowed with costs. The Act is declared to be invalid	 so that there will be restraint on the concerned bodies	 including the Union Government	 from taking or continuing any action under the Act. There will be one hearing fee. R.K.P.S. Petition and Appeal allowed.

The Hindi Sahitya Sammelan (hereinafter referred to as the Society) was a registered society founded for the development and propagation of Hindi. After a number of years of its successful working differences arose between its members and this resulted in litigation. in 1956 the Uttar Pradesh legislature passed the U.P. Sahitya Sammelan Act	 under which a statutory body was created under the name of Hindi Sahitya Sammelan. This act was declared void by the Allahabad High Court as violating the freedom of association guaranteed under article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution. Thereafter	 Parliament enacted the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Act	 1962legislating under entry 63	 list I of the Seventh Schedule declaringthat "the institution known as the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan is an institution of national importance". By the Act a statutory sammelan was constituted as a body corporate by the name of the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan. Under section 4(1) of the Act the Sammelan was to consist of the first members of the Society and all persons who might become members thereafter in accordance with the rules made in that behalf by the first Governing Body to be constituted by the Central Government by notification. The Act provided	 for vesting in the Sammelan of all property movable or immovable	 of or belonging to the society. Petitions under Article 226 in the High Court and under Article 32 in this Court were filed challenging the constitutionality of the Act mainly on the ground that the Act interfered with the right of the petitioners to form association under Article 19(1) (c) of the Constitution. The High Court held that since all the members of the society had also become members of the Sammelan under the Act	 there was no infringement of the right to form association. In the appeal and in the petition under Article 32	 the respondent contended that having declared the old Hindi Sabitya Sammelan	 which was a society registered under the as an institution of national importance	 Parliament has proceeded to legislate in respect of it under entry 63 of List I of the Seventh Schedule in order that its administration may not suffer as a result of the quarrels that were going inter be between the members of the society; it was for this purpose that a first Governing Body was constituted to take over the management temporarily; the Act was designed to reconstitute the Sammelan in such a manner that it could worm successfully and without difficulties; and in making provisions for this purpose all members of the old society were included as members of the Sammelan 8 4 1 so that their right to form association may not be taken away from them Alternatively the respondent took up the position that the Act no where specifically laid down that the society shall stand dissolved while it constituted a new Sammelan and therefore	 it should be inferred that while the society still continued to exist in its original form the law has brought into existence a new Sammelan to which all the functions and the properties etc. of the society have been passed. Allowing the petition and the appeal. HELD : Under section 12(1) (a) very wide powers are given to the first governing body to make rules in respect of matters relating to membership including qualifications and disqualifications for membership of the Sammelan. Under this power the rules framed could make provisions for admission of persons as members whom the original members of society may never have liked to admit in their Society. The number of such new members could even be so large as to leave the original members in a small minority with the result that those members. could become totally ineffective in the society. Thus the Sammelan which has come into existence	 is not identical with the Sammelan which was a registered society under the .	 This is clear interference with the right to form a society which has been exercised by the members of the Society by forming the Society with its constitution under which they were members. The Act does not merely regulate the admi nistration of the affairs of the Society; what it does is to alter the composition of the society itself. The result of this change in composition is that the members	 who voluntarily formed the society are now compelled to act in that Association with other members who have been imposed as members by the Act and in whose admission to membership they had no say. The right to form association necessarily implies that the persons forming the society have also the right to continue to be associated with only those whom they voluntarily admit in the association. Any law by which members are introduced in the voluntary association without any option being given to the members to keep them out or any law which takes away the membership of those who have voluntarily joined. it will be a law violating the right to form association. [847 H; 849 C E] The right guaranteed by Article 19(1)(c) cannot be confined to the initial stage of forming an association. if it were to be so confined	 the right would be meaningless because as soon as an association is formed	 a law may be passed interfering with its composition so that the association formed may not be able to function at all. The right can be effective only if it is held to include within	 it the right to continue the association with its composition as voluntarily agreed upon by the persons forming the association. And	 Article 19(4)	 on the face of it	 cannot be called in aid to claim lidity for the Act. Therefore the provisioncontained in the Act for reconstituting the society into the Sammelan is void. The whole Act becomes ineffective in as much as the formation of the new Sammelan is the very basis for all the other provisions in the Act. [849 F H; 851 E] O.K. Ghosh and Another vs E. X. Joseph	 [1963] SUppl. 3 S.C.R. 789; State of Madras vs V. G. Row	 ; and V. G. Row vs The State of Madras	 A.I.R. 1951 Mad. 147	 referred to. The alternative submission cannot be accepted as ensuring the validity of the Act. First	 the specific case taken by the respondent has been	 that the Actreconstitutes the Society and does not create a separate and independent body in the form of a new Sammelan. Secondly	 even if it be acceptedthat a new Sammelan has been constituted	 the question of 842 legislative competence of Parliament to pass such a law will arise. The Sammelan is itself a body corporate and that Sammelan has never been declared as an institution of national importance. The only institution that was so declared was the society which	 of course	 earlier carried the same name as the new Sammelan. Parliament was	 therefore	 not competent to legislate in respect of this newly constituted Sammelan which at no stage has been declared as an institution of national importance. Thirdly	 if it were to be held that Parliament passed this Act so as to transfer all the properties and assets of the Society to the Sammelan	 the Act would contravene Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution. The Sammelan is a new	 separate and distinct legal entity from the Society. The Society is thus deprived of all its properties by the Act and such a law depriving the Society of its properties altogether cannot be held to be a reasonable restriction in the public interest on the right of the society to hold the property. The applicability of Article 19(1(f) is on the assumption that the old Society still exists as it was and yet its properties have been transferred to the Sammelan. If the Society still exists	 so does its Governing Body in whom the property of the Society vested. The Act thus deprives the members of the Governing Body of the property which still continued to vest in them in spite of the passing of the Act. This total deprivation of property instead of regulating the management of the affairs of the Society of its property cannot clearly be justified as a reasonable restriction in public interest. If the law is passed not merely for ensuring proper management and administration of the property	 but for totally depriving the persons	 in whom the property vested	 of their right to hold the property	 the law cannot be justified as reasonable restriction under Article 19(5). [852 B H; 853 E 854 A] The Board of Trustees	 Ayurvedic and Unani Tibia College	 Delhi vs The State of Delhi & Anr. [1962] Suppl. I S.C.R. 156; referred to.