Back
1979 Supreme(Raj) 364
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
S.K.Mal Lodha, J.
Sayeed Khan - Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 363 of 1979.
Decided On : 17-08-1979
Restrictions imposed on the rights of subordinate officers of the prison staff by Rule 320A were not reasonable in the interests of public order.
Headnote:
PRISON RULES - Rule 320A - Validity - Restrictions imposed by Rule 320A on the rights of subordinate officers of the prison staff - Whether reasonable in the interests of public order - Held, no.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a warder in Central Jail, Jodhpur, challenged the constitutional validity of Rule 320A, which was added to the Rajasthan Prisons Rules, 1951. Rule 320A imposed restrictions on the rights of subordinate officers of the prison staff, including the right to form associations, the right to freedom of speech and expression, and the right to assemble peaceably and without arms.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that Rule 320A was beyond the competence of the Governor under Article 309 of the Constitution, as the rules under the Act could only be framed by the State Government. The court also held that Sub-rules (1) and (2) of Rule 320A infringed the fundamental rights of the subordinate officers of the prison and they were not protected by Clauses (2), (3) and (4) of Article 19. Finally, the court held that Sub-rule (3) of Rule 320A was beyond the rule making power of the Governor under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, as it does not regulate recruitment and conditions of service of the subordinate officers of the prison staff.
Issues: 1. Whether Rule 320A was beyond the competence of the Governor under Article 309 of the Constitution? 2. Whether Sub-rules (1) and (2) of Rule 320A infringed the fundamental rights of the subordinate officers of the prison and they were not protected by Clauses (2), (3) and (4) of Article 19? 3. Whether Sub-rule (3) of Rule 320A was beyond the rule making power of the Governor under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that Rule 320A was beyond the competence of the Governor under Article 309 of the Constitution, as the rules under the Act could only be framed by the State Government. 2. The court held that Sub-rules (1) and (2) of Rule 320A infringed the fundamental rights of the subordinate officers of the prison and they were not protected by Clauses (2), (3) and (4) of Article 19. 3. The court held that Sub-rule (3) of Rule 320A was beyond the rule making power of the Governor under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, as it does not regulate recruitment and conditions of service of the subordinate officers of the prison staff.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed and the notification by which, Rule 320A was added to existing Rule 320 of the Rules was held illegal and it was declared that Rule 320A of the Rules was ultra vires and invalid. It was, accordingly, struck down.
"320A. Restrictions respecting right to form Association, freedom of speech etc.-
(1) No subordinate officer shall without the express sanction, of the Government:
(a) be a member of, or be associated in any way with any trade union, labour unions of political associations; or
(b) be a member of, or be associated in any way with any other society, institution, association or organisation that is not recognised as part of the Prison Department of which he is an employee or is not of a purely social, recreational or religious nature; or
(c) communicate with the press or publish or cause to be published any book, letter or other document unless such communication or publication is in the bonafide discharge, of his duties or is of a purely literary, artistic or scientific character. Explanation:- If any question arises as to whether any society, institution, association or organisation is of a purely social, recreation or religious nature under Clause (b) of Sub-rule (1), the decision of the Government thereon shall be final.
(2) No subordinate officer shall shout slogans or display play cards or or flags or otherwise participate in or address any meeting or take part in any demonstration organised:
(a) for any political purposes; or
(b) for the purposes of protesting against any of the provisions of the Prisons Act of 1894 or these rules or any other rules made under that Act; or
(c) for the purposes of protesting against any disciplinary action taken or proposed to be taken against him or against any other subordinate officer; or
(d) for any purpose connected with any matter pertaining to him remuneration or other condition of service or his conditions of work or his living conditions, or the remuneration, ether conditions of service conditions of work or living conditions, of any other subordinate.
(3) Any person who contravenes any of the provisions of the above Sub-rules (1) and (2) shall, without prejudice to any other action that may be taken against him, be liable to be dismissed in a disciplinary proceeding and also be liable to be prosecuted under, Section 54 of the Prisons Act. 1894 and there shall be no hesitation in launching prosecution and simultaneously folding disciplinary proceedings. The petitioner has proved that by at appropriate writ, order or direction, it may be declared that the aforesaid notification Anx. 1, is illegal as being ultra vires of the Sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Clause (1) of Article 19 of the Constitution and it may be struck down. It has also been prayed that if any action is taken against the petitioner on account of the addition of Rule 320A, it, may also be declared that such action is illegal.
