The provisions of the Police Forces (Restriction of Rights) Act, 1966, and the Rules framed thereunder, which restrict the right of police personnel to form associations, are constitutional and do not violate the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 19(1)(c) and 14 of the Constitution of India.

S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.

1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India raises a question of great significance and importance. That question is whether the respondents to this writ petition were justified in rejecting the application of the petitioners before us requesting for grant of permission to form an association of police personnel for the rank of Assistant Superintendent of Police and below.

2. Though the petitioners have understood the controversy as above, there are other issues involved. That is arising out of a refusal of the then Director General of Police, vide the impugned order, to the concerned police officials to establish an association of policemen. It is the permission to establish such association which itself is rejected. This rejection is challenged on the ground that it violates the freedom guaranteed vide Article 19 of the Constitution of India and particularly Article 19(1)(c). That right to freedom and in the subject case of forming association or union cannot be denied only on the ground that the applicants or persons seeking to establish the association are policemen. It is stated that clause 4 of Article 19 does not in any manner permit the State from refusing the permission as sought or to make any law imposing a restriction of this nature. This rejection is much beyond the parameters of clause (4) of Article 19 of the Constitution of India. The refusal is a threshold action. It is at the inception that the policemen have been prohibited from coming together and form an association. This refusal, therefore, violates the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Equally, the refusal cannot be justified on the touchstone of Article 33 clause (b). It is urged that the restriction or abrogation is not justified even on the touchstone of the said clause of Article 33. That is because it is the prerogative of the Parliament and the Parliament alone could determine to what extent any of the rights, conferred by para 3 shall, in their application, to the members of the force charged with maintenance of public order, be restricted or abrogated. It is thus claimed that the impugned order is, therefore, ultra vires this constitutional provision, wholly illegal and deserves to be quashed and set aside.

3. The above issues are raised in the backdrop of the following facts and circumstances:

4. The petitioners are citizens of India. Petitioner No. 1 is Police Sub Inspector, presently working at Byculla Traffic Station, Petitioner No. 2 is Police Naik presently working at Borivali Railway Police Station. Petitioner No. 3 is Police Naik at present working at Naigaon Police Headquarters, Petitioner No. 4 is Assistant Police Sub Inspector and is presently working at Shivaji Nagar Police Station, Mumbai and Petitioner No. 5 is Police Hawaldar at present working at Alibaug Police Headquarters.

5. Respondent No. 1 is Head of the police force in the State of Maharashtra and is responsible for the functioning and welfare of the police personnel within the State of Maharashtra. The second respondent is the State of Maharashtra.

6. The petitioners state that the police force is the backbone of any society and society's security and maintenance of law and order depends almost entirely upon the police force. As with other State employees, the police personnel are human beings and form such point of view, it is essential that their service conditions are protected and that their welfare is not neglected. In order to maintain and increase their alertness, efficiency, integrity and morale, it is necessary that they are given the necessary facilities and that their legitimate grievances are looked into. Indeed, looking after their welfare and needs would ensure that the police personnel can perform their duties efficiently and sincerely.

7. The petitioners state that as per the provisions of the Police Forces (Restriction of Rights) Act, 1966, certain restrictions are imposed with respect to