1. Petitioners challenge Government order reorganising police associations by abolishing one and merging members with others. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 64869
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bechu Kurian Thomas, J
Kerala Police Association – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 26155 OF 2026 | WP(C) NO. 26295 OF 2026
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Babu S. Nair, Smitha Babu, P.A. Rajesh, Pranav, K.P. Dhaneesh, Siddharth Karun Pisharody, Farsana Noushad, P.C. Sasidharan
For the Respondents: Laya Mary Joseph, Nisha George, Alex K. John, George Poonthottam (Sr.), Rasheed C. Nooranad, Laliza.T.Y., P.A. Mohammed Shah, Cyriac Elias Steen, Babu M.T., Jilcy Jacob, Fida Husna P.P., Anusree S. Kumar, Reena Jacob, Ninan Thomas, Gego George, Muhammed Zain Shabeer P.P., Divya R.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Babu S. Nair, Smitha Babu, P.A. Rajesh, Pranav, K.P. Dhaneesh, Siddharth Karun Pisharody, Farsana Noushad, P.C. Sasidharan
For the Respondents: Laya Mary Joseph, Nisha George, Alex K. John, George Poonthottam (Sr.), Rasheed C. Nooranad, Laliza.T.Y., P.A. Mohammed Shah, Cyriac Elias Steen, Babu M.T., Jilcy Jacob, Fida Husna P.P., Anusree S. Kumar, Reena Jacob, Ninan Thomas, Gego George, Muhammed Zain Shabeer P.P., Divya R.
The right to form an association under Article 19(1)(c) includes the right to continue that association with its voluntary composition. Recognized associations cannot be unilaterally abolished or restructured by the government without adhering to approved by-laws or providing a reasonable opportunity for representation.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 19(1)(c), 19(4) and 33 - Police Forces (Restriction of Rights) Act, 1966 - Section 3(1)(b) - Police Forces (Restriction of Rights) Rules, 1966 - Rules 8 and 9 - Kerala Police Act, 2011 - Section 109 - Right to form and continue an association - Whether the government has the power to restructure recognized associations of a police force and abolish one of them - Fundamental right to form an association under Article 19(1)(c) is not limited to the initial stage of formation but includes the right to continue the association with the composition voluntarily agreed upon by its members - Any action that alters the composition by introducing members without consent or taking away membership violates this right (Paras 13-17, 24-27).
(B) Police Forces (Restriction of Rights) Rules, 1966 - Rule 8 - Procedure for revoking recognition - Before refusing or revoking recognition of an association, the association must be given a reasonable opportunity of making representation against the proposed action - Government cannot unilaterally interfere with the structure of recognized associations without following such mandatory procedures (Paras 18-20, 30).
(C) Maintainability of Writ Petition - Locus standi of a recognized association - Although an association itself may not possess fundamental rights, a recognized association has a legal right to ensure its by-laws are not infringed upon by the government, especially when its elected committees are removed and membership is forcibly altered (Paras 34-36).
Facts of the case:
The government issued an order reorganizing three recognized associations of a police force by abolishing one association and merging its members into the other two. The order further directed the distribution of assets, bank accounts, and liabilities of the abolished association between the remaining two in a specific ratio. Additionally, the government superseded the elected managing committees of the remaining associations by appointing ad hoc committees to oversee the transition and conduct fresh elections.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the government order was an intrusion into the fundamental rights of the members guaranteed under Article 19(1)(c) read with Article 33 of the Constitution. The court noted that the order contradicted the proposal of the State Police Chief, which had recommended retaining all three associations. The abolition of the association and the arbitrary restructuring of membership without the consent of members or adherence to the approved by-laws were held to be legally invalid.
Issues: (i) Whether the Government has the power to restructure the three Associations existing in the police force and in that process abolish one of them? (ii) Whether the impugned orders abolishing the association and forming the Ad-Hoc Committees are legally valid? (iii) Whether the writ petitions are maintainable? (Para 11)
Ratio Decidendi: The right to form an association under Article 19(1)(c)necessarily implies the right to continue the association with a composition voluntarily agreed upon by the founders and regulated by its own rules. Since the Parliamentary legislation under Article 33 (the PRR Act, 1966) does not dilute the right to be part of a recognized association, the government cannot unilaterally restructure or abolish such associations. Any move to revoke recognition must comply with the requirement of granting a reasonable opportunity for representation (Paras 25, 27, 29, 30).
Result: Impugned orders set aside; writ petitions allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- constitutional law
- administrative law
- practice and procedure
- statutory interpretation
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners argue violation of fundamental right to form association under Article 19(1)(c); respondents contend Government has power to restructure recognised associations. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 )
3. Right to form association includes right to continue association with voluntarily admitted members; PRR Act does not restrict recognised police associations. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 )
4. Government lacks power to restructure recognised police associations without following procedure under PRR Act and Rules for revocation of recognition. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 )
5. Writ petitions allowed; impugned orders reorganising associations and constituting ad hoc committees set aside. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 )
6. Does the right to form an association under Article 19(1)(c) include the right to continue the association with its existing composition?
Yes, the right includes the right to continue the association with its composition as voluntarily agreed upon, and any law altering that composition violates Article 19(1)(c). (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 )
7. Can the State restructure recognised police associations without following the procedure under the Police Forces (Restriction of Rights) Act, 1966?
No, the State cannot restructure recognised police associations without following the revocation procedure under the PRR Act and Rules, including granting an opportunity of representation. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 28 , 29 , 30 )
8. Is a writ petition maintainable by a recognised police association challenging Government action affecting its composition?
Yes, a recognised association has a legal right to ensure its byelaws are not infringed, and the writ petition is maintainable, especially when individual members also join as petitioners. (Para 34 , 35 , 36 )
9. What is the effect of Article 33 of the Constitution on the right of police personnel to form associations?
Article 33 allows Parliament to restrict or abrogate fundamental rights for police personnel. The PRR Act implements this, but it does not restrict the right to be part of a recognised police association. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 )
JUDGMENT
The petitioners question a Government Order reorganising three recognized Associations of the police force of the State by abolishing one and merging its members with the other two. The order constituting two Ad hoc Committees for the reorganised Associations, in place of their elected Managing Committees until fresh elections are held, has also been challenged.
2. A brief reference to the facts are necessary to comprehend the issues raised in these two writ petitions. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.26155 of 2026 is the Kerala Police Association (for short ‘KPA’), which consists of the Constables and the Head Constables, while W.P.(C) No.26295 of 2026 is filed by the Kerala Police Officers Association (for short ‘KPOA’) along with two members of that Association, which consists of Grade Assistant Sub Inspectors to Circle Inspectors of Police. The latter Association, i.e. KPOA has been abolished by the impugned order. The Government of Kerala had permitted the formation of three Associations in the police force by an order of 1979. Apart from the petitioners in these two writ petitions, there is another Association called Kerala Police Senior Officers Association (for short ‘KPSOA’), which includes officers who serve as Deputy Superintendents of Police and Superintendents of Police (Non-IPS).
3. While the above referred three Associations have been functioning independently for the last forty seven years, in accordance with the byelaws approved by the Government, the impugned order was issued on 27.07.2026 on the basis of an alleged proposal of the State Police Chief, reorganising the membership structure of the Associations after abolishing one of them. Petitioners have pleaded that the impugned order directs the KPA and KPSOA to be reorganised after abolishing KPOA. The impugned order further states that the entire assets of the KPOA including bank accounts, documents, deposits, rights and liabilities should be distributed in a ratio of 60:40 between the two Associations. Ad hoc Committees were also directed to be constituted by the State Police Chief at the State and District levels and elections to the reconstituted Associations be conducted on or before 30.09.2026. The day after the impugned order was issued by the State Government, the State Police Chief issued orders constituting two Ad hoc Committees. Thus the petitioners question the order reconstituting KPA and KPSOA apart from abolishing the KPOA as well as the orders constituting the Ad hoc Committees.
4. The counter affidavit filed by the second respondent points out that the petitioners are estopped from questioning the authority of the Government to reorganise police Associations as the existence of the Associations itself is traceable to a permission granted by the prescribed authority. After referring to the circumstances that necessitated the reorganisation, it is averred that the impugned order is the culmination of a recent administrative decision by the Government after examining changes in the organisational framework of the Kerala Police and the need to realign the recognised Associations. It is also stated that the Government had examined the functioning and composition of the recognised police Associations, following the introduction of the grade promotion scheme and noticing the practical difficulties in the existing membership pattern, decided to reorganize them, to align with the present service structure. According to the respondents, members of the police force with similar service conditions have been, by the impugned order, grouped together into appropriate associations.
5. The second respondent has also averred that the impugned order was issued in the larger interest of efficient police administration, based on the proposal of the State Police Chief and pleaded that the reorganisation has resulted in a more representative structure, with the KPSOA’s membership increasing from 451 to 3769. It is also stated that the Ad hoc Committee is a trans
