The main legal point established in the judgment is that the denial of privileges to an organization while allowing similar organizations constitutes hostile discrimination and violates fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India.

The main point that arises for consideration in this case is whether the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh can be denied the privilege of using Government School buildings for accommodating delegates of their conference as long as their activities are not banned and when other organisations are allowed the same privilege. The 1st petitioner is the Secretary of the Kerala Pradesh Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and the 2nd petitioner is the Tellicherry Taluk Karyavah of the Sangh. The petitioners' case is : The Sangh is a non-political cultural organisation devoted mainly to the fundamental task of reforming and reorganising the people of India. The Sangh was formed in 1925. The membership of the Sangh is open to all irrespective of their caste, creed or community. The volunteers of the Sangh had performed yeoman service during the floods in Andhra, Delhi and Uttar Pradesh and recently in some parts of Kerala also. The Sangh has not been indulging in any kind of objectionable activities.

On the 20th and 21st of Jan., 1979 a reception was organised in honour of Sri Bala Sahib Deoras, the Sar Sangh Chalak of the R.S.S. For the purpose of the stay of the delegates, the 2nd petitioner applied for the sanction of the Government High School building, Chirakkara. The 3rd respondent-District Educational Officer by Ext. P-1 order dated 7-10-1978 sanctioned the use of the school building. All the arrangements were made by the petitioners. Then, on the 16th of Jan., 1979, the 3rd respondent issued Ext. P-2 order to the 2nd petitioner cancelling Ext. P-1 sanction. When the 3rd respondent was contacted, the 1st petitioner came to know that Ext. P-2 was issued under the instructions of higher authorities. Ext. P-3 is a Government letter dated 17-10-1978 directing the 2nd respondent-Director of Public Instruction that 'school buildings and compounds should not be rented out or given for R.S.S. activities'. By Ext. P-4, the 2nd respondent circulated Ext. P-3 Government letter to all District Educational Officers. Ext. P-2 happened to be issued by the 3rd respondent under the instructions of respondents 1 and 2. Not a single instance had been reported since 1925 of any untoward or unpleasant incident in any of the camps held by the Sangh.

2. It was under the above circumstances that the petitioners approached this Court with this original petition challenging Exts. P-2 to P-4. Over and above the quashing of Exts. P-2 to P-4, the petitioners also have prayed for a declaration that Exts. P-2 to P-4 are violative of Arts.14, 19 (1) (a), (b) and (c) and Article 25 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners have raised the following contentions in the original petition: Ext. P-2 is not a speaking order. Ext. P-2 is not only an administrative order but is also a quasi-judicial order affecting the rights of the petitioners. Ext. P-2 is also not supported by any valid reason. There is no valid justification in discriminating the petitioners alone in the matter of sanctioning the use of school buildings and compounds. An unreasonable classification excluding the petitioners and their organisation alone in an arbitrary manner without assigning any reason is totally opposed to the provisions contained in Art.14 of the Constitution of India.

No other organisation, whether political or otherwise, has been so prohibited from the use of school premises for the purpose of stay. The Sangh alone is singled out for such discrimination. Exts. P-2, P-3 and P-4 are totally violative of the equality clause of the Constitution of India contained in Art.14. Exts. P-2 to P-4 also offend Art.19 (1) (a), (b) and (c) of the Constitution of India. The effect of Exts. P-2 to P-4 orders are prevention and total prohibition of the holding of a function in Tellicherry. It is submitted that the said prohibition or prevention or curtailment is not saved by any of the clauses of Art.19. Exts. P-3 and P-4 are clear abuse of the executive powers of the Government. Exts. P-2 to P-4 are