KAMESHWAR PRASAD AND OTHERS versus THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER

KAMESHWAR PRASAD AND OTHERS versus THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER

Rule 4-A, insofar as it prohibits any form of demonstration by government servants, is violative of Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) because it imposes a blanket ban, including on peaceful and innocent demonstrations unrelated to public disorder. Since the provision cannot be severed, the entire prohibition on demonstrations is ultra vires. However, the portion of the rule prohibiting strikes remains valid as there is no fundamental right to strike.

Parties
Appellants: Kameshwar Prasad and Others; Respondents: The State of Bihar and Another; Intervener: Union of India (Intervener No. 1); Intervener: E. X. Joseph (Intervener No. 2); Additional Counsel for Interveners: M. K. Ramamurthi, R. K. Garg, A. S. R. Chari
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
22 February 1962
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From Patna High Court Judgment and Decree Dated July 7, 1958 in M.j.c. No. 456 of 1957
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Government Servants' Fundamental Rights, Reasonable Restrictions Under Article 19, Validity of Service Rules
Constitutional Law Service Law Government Servants' Fundamental Rights Reasonable Restrictions Under Article 19 Validity of Service Rules

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kameshwar Prasad and Others

Appellants

The State of Bihar and Another

Respondents

Union of India (Intervener No. 1)

Intervener

E. X. Joseph (Intervener No. 2)

Intervener

M. K. Ramamurthi, R. K. Garg, A. S. R. Chari

Additional Counsel for Interveners

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From Patna High Court Judgment and Decree Dated July 7, 1958 in M.j.c. No. 456 of 1957

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Rule 4-A of the Bihar Government Servants' Conduct Rules, 1956, is violative of Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution insofar as it prohibits participation in any demonstration by government servants
  2. 2 Whether government servants possess fundamental rights guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution subject to reasonable restrictions
  3. 3 Whether there is a fundamental right to strike for government servants

Ratio Decidendi

Rule 4-A, insofar as it prohibits any form of demonstration by government servants, is violative of Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) because it imposes a blanket ban, including on peaceful and innocent demonstrations unrelated to public disorder. Since the provision cannot be severed, the entire prohibition on demonstrations is ultra vires. However, the portion of the rule prohibiting strikes remains valid as there is no fundamental right to strike.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Declaration that Rule 4-A of the Bihar Government Servants' Conduct Rules, 1956, prohibiting any form of demonstration, is violative of Articles 19(1)(a) and (b) and is struck down.
  • The prohibition on strikes in Rule 4-A remains valid.