CASE ANALYSIS – STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS. RAMASHANKER RAGHUVANSHI

CITATION	1983 SCC  (2) 145
DATE	21 February 1983
COURT NAME	SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT/PETITIONER	STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT.	RAMASHANKER RAGHUVANSHI
JUDGES	JUSTICE FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZAJUSTICE REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA

FACTS OF A CASE 

1. In this case, The respondent Ramashanker Raghuvanshi was employed as a teacher in a municipal school which was later taken over by the State Government of Madhya Pradesh on 1 June 1971. 

2. This employment was under local municipal authority, not directly under the State Government. The respondent was absorbed in Government service by an order dated February 28, 1972. 

3.  The order recited that the absorption was subject to ‘verification of antecedents’ and medical fitness The services of the respondent were terminated on November S, 1974. 

4. Though the order terminating the services of the respondent did not purport to stigmatise him in any manner, it was not disputed before the High Court and it is no longer disputed before Supreme Court that the order was founded on a report made by the Superintendent of Police, Raigarh on October 31, 1974, to the effect that the respondent was not a fit person to be entertained in Government service, as he had taken part in ‘RSS and Jan Sangh activities’.

5.  The High Court held that the order of termination of service was of a punitive character and quashed it on the ground that the provisions of Art. 311 of the Constitution had not been complied with. The State of Madhya Pradesh has sought leave to appeal to this court under Art. 136 of the Constitution.

ISSUES

1. 1. Whether the respondent’s termination, grounded solely on a police report of his past political activities, was punitive and therefore required compliance with Article 311 of the Constitution.

2. Whether denial or termination of public employment based on a candidate’s prior lawful politi- cal associations violates the Fundamental Rights guaranteed by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

2. 3. Whether a governmental policy of seeking and acting upon police reports about a candidate’s political faith is compatible with the constitutional scheme of a democratic republic.

JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court laid down the decision as mentioned below:

1. The right to equality before the law and the equal protection of the right laws, the right to equality of opportunity in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State are declared Fundamental Rights. 

2. Yet the Government of Madhya Pradesh seeks to deny employment to the respondent on the ground that the report of a Police officer stated that he once belonged to some political organisation. It is important to note that the action sought to be taken against the respondent is not any disciplinary action on the ground of his present involvement in political activity after entering the service of the Government, contrary to some Service Conduct Rule. 

3.  It is further to be noted that it is not alleged that the respondent ever participated in any illegal, vicious or subversive activity. There is no hint that the respondent was or is a perpetrator of violent deeds or that he exhorted anyone to commit violent deeds. There is no reference to any addition to violence or vice or any incident involving violence, vice or other crime. 

4.All that is said is that before he was absorbed in Government service, he had taken part in some ‘RSS or Jan Sangh activities.’ What those activities were has never been disclosed. Neither the RSS nor the Jan Sangh is alleged to be engaged in any , subversive or other illegal activity; nor are the organisations banned. .

5.  What was wrong in his being a member of an organisation which is not even alleged to be devoted to subversive or illegal activities. The whole idea of seeking a Police report on the political faith and the past political activity of a candidate for public employment appears to our mind to cut at the very root of the Fundamental Rights of equality of opportunity in the matter of employment, freedom of expression and freedom of association. It offends the fundamental rights guaranteed by articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution to deny employment to an individual because of his past political affinities, unless such affinities are considered likely to affect the integrity and efficiency of the individual’s service. Many precedents were taken into account such as Wieman v. Updegraff, 97 L. Ed. 216 (U.S. 1952), Garner v. Board of Public Works (U.S.), Gerende v. Board of Supervisors (U.S.), Dent v. West Virginia & Hawker v. New York (US), Lerner v. Casey (U.S.), Speiser v. Randall (U.S.)Gitlow v. New York, 69 L. Ed. 1138 (U.S.) – Holmes, J. dissent

6. Hence the Supreme court upheld the order of the high court and  the Application is dismissed.

COURT RESONING 

Justice Chinnappa Reddy, writing for the Court, held that India, as a democratic republic, guarantees liberty of thought, expression, and association. This determination has been written into the articles of the Constitution in the shape of Fundamental Rights and they are what makes India a democratic republic and what marks India from authoritarian or police States.  Denial of employment on the basis of past politi- al activity, without any allegation of illegality, violence, or present misconduct, offends these guarantees.

The Court reasoned that:

• Neither the RSS nor the Jan Sangh is a banned or subversive organisation; participation in their activities is not illegal.

• Seeking police verification of a candidate’s political faith undermines the Fundamental Rights under Articles 14 (equality before law) and 16 (equality of opportunity in public employment).

• The termination was punitive in character because it rested on perceived disloyalty, thereby in- voking Article 311 safeguards which were ignored.

• Adopting such a policy would institutionalise “MeCarthyism,” inconsistent with the ideals en- shrined in the Constitution.

• While public servants may be bound by conduct rules after entry into service, past lawful politi- cal activities cannot justify exclusion from, or termination of, government employment.

• Justice Fazal Ali concurred in the dismissal of the petition without elaborating on the merits.

REFERENCE 

1. https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ac0be4b014971140ddd7#1
2. 1983 SCC (2) 145

WRITTEN BY VEERANGNA RAI, AN INTERN UNDER LEGAL VIDHIYA. 

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is personal.