The Court held that the petitioner was not guilty of any offence under the Police Act, as he had been commanded "to handle the situation tactfully", and that this order contained an implied prohibition against the use of force. The Court also found that the petitioner had not been given a fair opportunity to defend himself against the charge, as he had not been given the names of the prosecution witnesses in advance.

( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution impugning the legality of an order passed by the Additional Superintendent of Police, Varanasi, dated 10-11-1955, reducing the petitioner in rank for a period of two years, and also of an order of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Eastern Range, Varanasi dated 26-6-1956 dismissing the petitioners appeal against the aforesaid order of reduction, and of the order of the Inspector General of Police, Uttar Pradesh dated 20-3-1957, rejecting the petitioners revision petition.

( 2 ) THE facts, as stated in the petitioners affidavit are these :

He was enlisted in the U. P. Police force in 1931 and claims to have a good record of meritorious service (this claim is not denied by the State ). On 15-8-3955, the petitioner was posted as Station Officer-in-charge of the Police station at Moghalsarai in the district of Varanasi. Just before that time a firing had taken place in the State of Bihar, as a result of which several students had died. This led to agitation among the students in Uttar Pradesh as well and demonstration took place on 15th August. A large crowd of students and others collected at Moghalsarai in the morning and went round the town shouting slogans. At or about 9. 30 A. M. a procession consisting of nearly 3,000 persons, mostly students, marched to the Police Station Moghalsarai and began to shout slogans. They wanted that the national flag hoisted on the building should be half-masted out of respect for the memory of students who were killed in the firing at Patna. The crowd stated that if this demand was not granted it should be fired. The petitioner, who was incharge of the Police station, had already telephoned to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Varanasi, and requested him to send re-enforcements to enable him to deal with the situation. This was done by him before the arrival of the procession. But no re-enforcements turned up and the crowd reached the Police station and made the aforesaid demand for the half-masting of the national flag. The petitioner states that he again telephoned to the Senior Superintendent of police informing him of the demand made by the students. He told him that the situation was critical and requested him to send police aid immediately, as the Police force available at the station was wholly inadequate to deal with the crowd. The petitioner further states that the senior Superintendent of Police directed him on the telephone "to handle the situation, tactfully"

(this allegation is admitted by the State ).

( 3 ) ALL this caused delay which made the crowd restless, insistent and increasingly aggressive. The Police reinforcement did not arrive. The petitioner states that, in these circumstances, there were only two alternatives open to him either to ask the processionist to disperse, and on their refusal, to use force and resort to firing if necessary, for to avoid blood-shed by acceding to the request for the half-masting of the national flag. It is alleged by the petitioner that the crowd assured him that they did not mean any disrespect for the national flag which, they considered to be their own flag, but they only wanted it to be half-masted in memory of the students who had died as a result of the police firing at Patna. In these circumstances, the petitioner, having failed to persuade the mob to disperse, realised that its attitude made it clear that any formal order to disperse would be resisted. He also realised that the Police force at his disposal was wholly inadequate to meet the situation, and that the station building was so constructed as to preclude any defensive resistance against a defiant mob of such a big size. In these circumstances, the petitioner used his own discretion and decided, in the best interest and prestige of the Government, to avoid blood-shed and destruction of Government property by conceding the crowds demand for half-masting the national flag. He, therefore, directe