Holding

The petition is dismissed; denial of employment on the basis of past political affiliations, without evidence of illegal conduct, violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

Summary

The respondent, a teacher absorbed into Madhya Pradesh government service, had his employment terminated after a police report alleged his prior involvement in RSS and Jan Sangh activities. The High Court quashed the termination, holding that the order was punitive and violated Article 311 of the Constitution. The State filed a special leave petition under Article 136 challenging that decision. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, emphasizing that past political affiliations, absent any illegal or subversive conduct, cannot be a ground for denial of public employment and that such a requirement infringes Articles 14 and 16. The Court reiterated that once a person becomes a government servant, conduct is governed by rules consistent with the Constitution, but past political belief alone is not disqualifying. Consequently, the termination order remained set aside.

Issues considered

Whether a police report on a candidate's past political activities can be used to deny public employment under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Whether termination of a government servant without compliance with Article 311 is invalid.
Whether past affiliation with non‑banned political organisations constitutes a punishable ground for dismissal.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Art.14, s. Art.16, s. Art.311

Subjects

Fundamental RightsFreedom of AssociationEquality of OpportunityPublic EmploymentPolitical AffiliationArticle 14Article 16Article 311Special Leave PetitionTermination of Service

Judgment

.
393 A
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

v.
'
. RAM,b,.SHANKAR RAGHUVANSHI & ANOTHER B
February 21, 1983

(S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI A~!D 0, CH!NNAPPA REDDY, JJ.)
•
Constitution of India. 1950-Art. 311-Seeking police report on past po/iii· C
cal activity and faith of a person for public employment-Whether offends articles
14 and 16 of the Constitution.

Consequent upon the talcing over by the Government of the municipal
school in which the respondent worked as a teacher, he was absorbed in Govern.
ment service. The order stated that his absorption in Government service was
subject to verification of his antecedents. Sometime later: on the basis of the D
report of the Superintendent of Police that before being absorbed in Government
service the respondent bad taken part "lo RSS and Jan Sangh activities his services
were terminated on the ground that he was not a fit perso,a to be .entertained in
Government service.

On the view that the order of termination of his service was of a puni·
tive character, passed without complying with the provisions of Art. 311 of the E
Constitution, the High Court quashed that order.

Dismissing the special leave petition under Art. 136 of the Constitution,

HELD:

per S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J. F
The special leave petition should be dismissed in limine. [394 HJ

per O. Chinnappa Reddy, J.

The respondent cannot be turned back at the very threshold on the
ground of his past political activities. Once be becomes a Government servant, G
he becomes subject to the various rules reSulating his conduct and his activities
must naturally be subject to all rules made in conformity with the
Constitution. [402 E-F] ·
>
The determination of the people of this country to constitute India into
a democratic republic and to secure to all its s:itizens "liberty of thought, H
expression, belief, faith and worship; Equality of status and opportunity" bas
been"written into tho articles of the Constitution in the shape of funda!Dental
•
394 SUPltEME COUltT ltEPOltTS [1983] 2 S.C.lt.

A rights and they are what makes India a democratic republic and what marks
India from authoritarian or police states. The right to form associations and
unions, among other rights, is declared as a fundamental right; yet the State
Government sought to deny employment to him on the ground that the report
of a police officer stated that he ·once belonged to some political organisation.
(395 F-H]

The action sought to be taken against the respondent was not any dis-
ciplinary action on the ground of bis present involvement in political activities
contrary to some Service conduct rule nor was there any allegation that he ever
participated in any illegal or subversive activity or that he was a perpetrator of
violent deed's, All that was said was that before he was absorbed in Govern·
meat service he bad taken part in RSS and Jan Sangh a.:tivitics. What those

c activities were had never been disclosed. Neither the RSS nor the Jan Sangh
was alleged to be engaged in any subversive or other illegal activities, nor were
they banned organisations. Most people may not agree with the programme
and philosophy of the Jan Sangh or RSS but that is irrelevent. Everyone is
entitled to his thoughts and view!1. Members of these organisations· continue
to be members of Parliament and State legislatures. They are heard often with
respect both inside and outside the Parliament. [395 H; 396 A-DJ
D The whole idea of seeking a police report on the political faith and the
past political activity of a candidate for public employment appears to cut at
the very root of the fundamental rightS of equality of opportunity in the matter
of employment and freedom of association. It offends the fundamental rights
guaranteed by articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution to deny employment to an
-individual because of his past political affinities, unless such affinities are
considered likely to affect the integrity and efficiency of the individual's service.
E [397 D-E]
Wieman v. Updegraff, 344 U.S. 183 & Spelsar v. Randall, 357 U.S. 573,
referred to.

OvJL APPHLATl Ju~JSDJCTION : Petition for ·Special Leave
to Appeal (Civil) No. 4679 of 1980.
F
From the Judgment and Order dated the 24th July, 1979 of
the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Misc. Petition
No. 119 of 1975.

Gopal Subramaniam and D. P. Mohanty for the Petitioner.
G
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

f AZAL -ALI. J., Since we are clearly of the view that the special
leave petition should be dismissed in limine on merits, I would not' ¥ -

H like to go any further into the details. of the facts of the case. I
would, therefore, refrain from expressing any opinion on the obser·
V!ltions made by my learned br9ther Chinnappa Re\ldy, J.
'

MADHYA PRADESH v. RAOHUVANSHI (Chlnnappa JI.eddy, J.) 39S

CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. This special leave petition bas to be
A
dismissed. There is no merit in it. The respondent was a teacher
employed in a municipal school. The school was taken over by
the Government-in June 1971. The respondent was absorbed in
Government service by an order dated February 28, 1972. The
order recited that the absorption was subject to 'verification of B
antecedents' and medical fitness. The services of the respondent
were terminated on November 5, 1974. Though the order termina-
ting the services of the respondent did not purport to stigmatise
him in any manner, it was not disputed before the Hi_gh Court and
it is no longer disputed before us that the order was founded on a
·report made by the Superintendent of Police, Raigarh on October
31, 1974, to the effect that the respondent was riot a fit person to be
c
entertained in Government service, as he had taken part in 'RSS and
Jan Sangh activities'. The High Court held that the order of
termination of service was of a punitive character and quashed it on
the ground that the provisions of Art. 311 of the Constitution
had not been complied with. The State of Madhya Pradesh has D
sought leave to appeal to this court under Art. 136 of the Consti-
tution.

India is not a police state. India is a democratic republic. More
tban 30 years ago, on January 26, 1950, the people of India resolved
to constitute India into a democratic republic and to secure to all E
its citizens "Liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship;
Equality of status and.opportunity", and to promote "Fraternity,
assuring the dignity of the individual". This determination of the
people, let us hope, is not a forgotten chapter of history. The
determination has been written into the articles of the Constitution
F
in the shape of Fundamental Rights and they are what makes India
a democratic republic and what marks India from authoritarian or
police States. The right to freedom of speech and expression, ~he
right to form associations and unions, the right to assemble peace-
ably and without arms. the right to equality before the law and the
equal protection of the right laws, the right to equality of opportunity G
in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under
the State are declared Fundamental Rights. Yet the Government of
Madhya Pradesh seeks to deny employment to the respondent on
the ground that the report of a Police Officer stated that he once!
belonged to some political organisation. It is important to note H
that the action sought to be taken against the respondent is not any
disciplinary action on the ground of. his present involvement in
396 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1983] 2 s.c.a.
A political activity after entering the service of the Government, con·
trary to some Service Conduct Rule. It is further to be noted
. that it is not alleged that the respondent ever participated in any
illegal, vicious or subversive activity. There is no hint that the
respondent was or is a perpetrator of violent deeds or that he
exhorted anyone to commit violent deeds. There is no reference
B to any addition to violence or vice or any incident involving vilolene,
vice or other crime. All that is said is that before he was absorbed in
Government service, he had taken part in some 'RSS or Jan Sangh
activities.' What those activities were has never been disclosed.
Neither the RSS nor th• Jan Sangh is alleged to be engaged in any
subversive or other illegal activity; nor are the organisations banned.
c Most people, including intellectuals, may not agree with the program
me and philosophy of the Jan Sangh and the RSS or, for that matter
of many other political parties and organisations of an altogether
different hue. But that is irrelevant. Everyone is entitled to his
thoughts and views. There are no barriers. Our Constitution
guarantees that. In fact members of these organisations continue
D to be members of Parliament anq State Legislatures. They
are heard, often with respect inside and outside the Parliament.
What then was the sin that the respondent committed in participa·
ting in some political actitivity before his absorption into
Government service. What was wr!Jng in his being a member of an
E organisation which is not even alleged to be devoted to subversive
or illegal activities. The whole idea of seeking a Police report on
the political faith and the past political activity of a candidate
for public employment appears to c•ur mind to cut at the very root
of the Fundamental Rights of equality of opportunity in the matter
of employment, freedom of expression and freedom of
F association. It is a different matter altogether if a police report is
sought on the question of the involvement of the candidate in any
criminal or subversive activity in order to find out bis suitability for
public employment. But why seek a police report on the political
faith of a candidate and act upon it. Politics is no crime. Does it
mean that only True Believers in the political faith of the party in
G power for the time being are entitled to public employmen.t? Would
it not lead to devastating results, if such a policy is pursued
by each of the Governments of the constituent States of India
where different political parties may happen to wield power, for the
time being ? Is public employment reserved for "the cringing and
H the craven" in the words of Mr. Justice Black of the United
States Supreme Court ? Is it not destructive of the dignity of the
MADHYA PRADESH v. RAGHUVANS B I (Chinnappa Reddy, i.) 397

individual mentioned in the preamble _of the Constitution ? Is it to A
be put against a youngman that before the cold di.mate of age and
office freezes him into immobility, he takes part in some politica 1
activity in a mild manner. Most students and most youngmen are
exhorted by national leaders to take part in political activities and
·

if they do get involved in some form of agitation or the other, is it
to be to their ever-lasting discredit? Sometimes they get involved
because they feel strongly and badly about injustice, because they are
possessed of integrity and because they are fired by idealism. They
get involved because they are pushed into the forefront by elderly
leaders who lead and occasionally mislead them. Should all these
youngmen be debarred from public employment? Is Government
service such a heaven that only angels should seek entry into it? c
We do not have the slightest doubt that the whole business of seek
�· ing police reports, about the political faith, belief and association
and the past political activity of a candidate for public employment
is repugnant to the basic rights guaranteed by the Constituion and
entirely misplaced in a democratic republic dedicated to the ideals
set forth in the preamble of the Constitution. W e think it offends
D
the Fundamental Rights guaranteed by Arts. 14 and 16 of the
Constitution to deny employment to an individual because of his
past political affinities, unless such affinities are considered likely
to affect the integrity ·and efficiency of the individual's service. To
hold otherwise would be to introduce 'McCarthysim' into India.
'McCarthyism' is obnoxious to the whole philosophy of our con· E
stitutioh. We do not want it.

I n the fifties the practice of baiting and crucifying teachers,
public servants and a h<1sl of others in the United States, as Com
munists came to be known as 'McCarthyism. Its baleful effects
were described by late President Eisenhower, himself an anticom F
munist as follows :-

"McCarthyism took its toll on many individuals
and on the Nation. No one was safe from charges reckles- ·

sly made from inside the walls of congressional immunity.
Teachers, Government employees, and even ministers G
became vulnerable. Innocent people accused of Communist
associations or party membership have not to this· day been
able to clear their names fully. For a few, of course, the
eogt Wllg little-where the accused wag a figure who stood
B
high in public trust and respect, personal damage, if any
could be ignored or laughed away. But where, without
3~8 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1983)-'2 S.C.R.

A proof cf guilt, ot because of some accidental or early-in· .. . •
life association with suspected persons, a man or WOIJ)an •<::! -'- _..
bad I ost a job or the confidence and trust of superiors and · ·
associates, the cost was often tragic, both emotionally and
occupationally".

B
The late President also said,

"Tiley ... fear otter people's ideas-every new idea. They ...
talk about censoring tho sources and the communication of
ideas .. without exhaustive debate-even heated debate-of
c ideas and programmes, free Government would weaken and
wither. But if we allow ourselves to be persuaded that
every individual, or party, that takes issue with our own
convictions is necessarily wicked or treasonous-then we
are approaching the end of freedom's road ... "

D In Wieman V. Updegraff; ('), Black J. said, in one of the note·
rious loyalty oath cases and, it is worth quoting in full.

"History indicates that individual liberty is intermittently
subjected to extraordinary perils, Even countries dedicated
to government by the people are not free from such cyclical
E dangers. The first years of our Republic marked such a
period. Enforcement of the Alien and Sedition Laws by
zealous patriots who feared ideas made it highly dangerous
for people to think, speak, or write critically about govern-
ment, its agents, or its policies, either foreign or domestic.
Our constitutional liberties survived the ordeal of this
regrettable period because there were influential men and
powerful organized groups bold enough to cham-
pion the undiluted right of individuals to publish and
argue for their beliefs however unorthodox or loathsome.
Today however, few individuals and organizations of
power and influence argue that unpopular advocacy has
G this same wholly unqualified immunity from gov.ernmental
interference. For this a.nd other reasons the present period
of fear seems more ominously dangerous . to speech and
press than was that of the Alien and Sedition Laws, Sup-
H pressive laws and practices are the fashion. The Oklahoma

(I) 344 U ,S. 183.
MAOHYA PRADESH v. RAGHUVANSHI (Chinnappa Reddy, J.) 399

oath statute is but one manifestation of a national network A
of laws aimed at coercing and controlling the minds of
men. Test oaths are notorious tools of tyranny. When ,
used to shackle the mind they are, or at least they
should be, unspeakably odio.us to a free people. Test
oaths are made still more dangerous when combined with
bills of attainder which like this Oklahoma statute impose B
pains and penalties for past lawful associations and
utterances.
•
"Governments need and have ample power to punish
treasonable acts. But it does not follow that they must have a
further power to punish thought and speech as distinguished
c
from acts. Our own free society should never forget that
laws which stigmatize and penalize thought and speech of
the unorthodox have a way of reaching, ensnaring and
silencing many more people than at first intended. We must
have freedom of speech for all or we will in the long run D
have it for none but the cringing and the craven. And I
cannot too often repeat my belief that the right to speak on
matters of public concern must be wholly lost.

"It seems self·evident that all speech criticizing govern· ·E
ment rulers and challenging current beliefs may be dange-
rous to the status quo. With full knowledge of this danger
the Framers rested our First Amendment on the premise
that the slightest suppression of thought, speech, press, or
public assembly is still more dangerous. This means that
individuals are guaranteed an undiluted and unequivocal F
tigh\ to express themselves on questions of current public
interest. It means that Americans discuss· such ques-
tions as of right and not on sufferance of 'legislatures,
courts or any other governmental agencies. It means
that courts are without power to appraise and penalize
utterances upon their notion that these utterances are G
llangerous. In my view this uncompromising interpretation
of the Bill of Rights i~ the one that must prevail if its free-
doms are to be saved. Tyrannical totalitarian governments
cannot safely allow their people to speak with complete
H
400 SUPREME COURT llEPOll TS [1983] 2s.c.a.

A freedom. I believe with the Framers that our free Govern-
ment can".

In another loyalty oath case, Garner v. Board of Public
Works, (1) Douglas, J had this to say :
B "Here the past conduct for which punishment is exac-
ted is single-advocacy within the past five years of the
overthrow of the Government by force and violence. In
the other cases the acts for which Cummings and Garland
stood condemned covered a wider range and involved some
conduct which might be vague and uncertain. But those
c differences, seized on here in hostility to the constitutional
provisions, are wholly irrelevant. Deprivation of a man's
means of livelihood by reason of past conduct, not subject
to this penalty when committed, is punishment whether he
is a professional man, a day labourer who works for private
industry, or a Government employee. The deprivation is
D nonetheless unconstitutional whether it be for one single
past act or a series of past acts ...

"Petitioners were disqualified from office not for what
they are today, not becanse of any program they currently
espouse (cf. Grende v. Board <>! Supervisors 341 U. S.
56) not because of standards related to fitness for the office,
cf. Dent v. West Virginia 129 U.S. 114; Hawker v. New
York, 110 U.S. 189, but for what they once advocated
"
Jn the same case, Frankfurter, J. observed :
F
"The.needs of security do not require such curbs on
what may well be innocuous feelings and associations. Such
curbs are indeed self-defeating. They are not merely unjus-
tifiable restraints on individuals. They are not merely
productive of an atmosphere of repression uncongenial to
G the spiritual vitality of a democratic society. The inhibitions
which they engender are hostile to the best conditions for
securing a high-minded and high-spirited public service."
Jn Lerner v. Casey, (") Douglas, J. said :
H
(1) 341 US 716.
(2) 357 us 468.
•

MADHYA PRADESH v. RAGHUVANSHI (Chinnappa Reddy/!.) 401 ..

A
"We deal here only with a matter of belief. We have
no evidence in either case that the employee in question
ever commilted a crime, ever moved in treasonable opposi-
tion against this country. The. only mark against them-if
it can be callesl such- is a refusal to answer questions con-
cerning Communist Party membership. This is said to give B
rise to doubts concerning the competence of the teacher in
the Beilan case and doubts as to the trustworthiness and
reliability of the subway conductor in the Lerner case .. ;"

"There are areas where government may not probe ...
But government has ·no business penalizing a citizen merely c
for his beliefs or associations. It is governwent action that
we have here. It is government action that the Fourteenth
and First Amendments protect against ...
Many join associations, societies, and fraternities with less
than full endorsement of all their aims."
D
In Speiser v. Randall, (1) Black, J said :
•
"This case offers just another example of a wide-scale
effort by Government fa this country to imJ*se penalities
and disabilities on everyone who is or is suspected of being
E
a 'Communist' or who is not ready at all times and all
places to swear bis loyality to State and Nation ... I am con-
vinced that this whole of business of penalizing people
because of their views and expressions concerning Government
is hopelessly repugnant to the principles of freedom upon F
which this Nation was founded .. Loyalty oaths, as well as
other contemporary 'security measures,' tend to stifle all
forms of unorthodox or unpopular thinking or expression
-the kind of thought and expression which has played such
a vital and beneficial role in the History of this Nation. The
result is a stultifying conformity which in the end may well G
turn out to be more destructive to our free society than
foreign agents could ever hope to be.''

In the same case, Douglas, J., said :
H
(I) 357 US 673.
...
'

402 SUPREME COURt REPollTS (1983) i s.c.R.

' "Advocacy which is in no way brigaded with action
should always be protec:ted by the First Amendment. That
protection should extend even to the ideas we despise. As
Mr. Justice Holmes, wrote in dissent in Git/ow. v. New
•
York. (') 'If in the Jong run the beliefs expressed in proleta·
rian dictatorship are destined to be accepted by the domi·
B nant forces of the community, the only meaning of free
speech is that they should be given their chance anil have
their way'. It is time for government-state or federal-to
become concerned with the citizen's advocacy when his
' ideas and beliefs move into ihe realm of action".
c
We may end our excursion to the United States of America
with a reference to the words of wisdom uttered by Thomas
Jefferson more than two centuries ago :

D " ... the opinions. of men are not the object of civil
government, nor under its jurisdiction; ...... it is time enough
for the rightful purposes of civil government for its officers
to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against
•

E
,,
peace and good order."

We are not for a moment suggesting that even after entry
into Government service, a person may engage himself in
politi.cal activities. All that we say is that he cannot be turned
back at the very threshold on the ground of his past political
activities. Once he becomes a Government servant, he becomes
F subject to the various rules regulating his conduct· and his
activities must naturally be subject to all rules made in confor-
mity with the Constitution.

Let us once more remined ourselves of what Gurudev
G Rabindranath Tagore said:

''Where the mind is without fear and the head is held
high : where knowledge is free; ..... .

H (I) 268 us 652: 69 L.Ed. 1138, 1148. 45 s. Ct. 625,
MADHYA PRADESH v. RAGHUVA'NSHI (Chinnappa Reddy, J.) 403

Where the clear stream of reason bas not lost its way A
into the dreary desert sand of dead habit :

Where the mind is led forward by thee into ever widen-
ing thought and action

B
let my country awake".

... ,
The application is dismissed .

P.B.R Petition dismissed,
c

-

•