STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. versus THAKUR PRATAP SINGH

THE 8TATE OF HA,JASTHAI\ AND ORS.

ugwsl 18.

THAKUH PRATAP SINGH.

(8. I\. lJAS, M. HIDAYATULLAH, K. c. DAS GUPTA,

J.C. SHAH and N. RAJAOOPALA AYYANOAR, JJ.)

Discrimination on groZ4nds of caste and religion-Govertunt'll 110/ijicalio" exempting Harijans a11d Muslims from payment of addi-liPnal police cos/-1-alidity-Conslilulion of India. Ari. 15(1) --I'olicc Act, 1861 (I. of 1861), s. 15.

Ry para 4 of notification issued under s. 15 of the Police Act the Rajasthan Go\'ernment exempted the Harijan and Mus-li1n.in11abitants of Certain villages fro1n payment of the cost of additional police force stationed therein. 'fhc notification y,·as r:hallcngc<l as being violative of the guarantee contained in Art. 15(1) of the Constitution of India.

Held, that since para 4 of the notification had discriminated <1gainst the law-abiding members of other con1munities and in favour of the ~tuslims and Harijans on the grouncis of caste and religion, it was directly hrt by the provision of. Art. 15(1) of the Con'Stitution and as such must be declared to be invalid.

CIVIL Al'l'E[,f.ATF. ,JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 231 of 1956.

Appeal from th<' judgment and order dated Sop-tl'rnber 11, 1953, of th" H.ajasthan High Court (Jaipur B"nch) at Jaipur in Writ Application No. 141 of l !!.52.

M. 8. K. Sa81ri and 1'. M. Sen, for the appolla.nts.

The respondent did not appear.

1960. August 18. The Judgment of tho Court was dclh-ered hy

lln_-.,,o{'nl• RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, J.-This appeal raises for .h.,,;1ga. J. consideration the constitutional validity of one para.graph of notification issued by the State of H.ajasthan under s. 15 of the Police Act, 1861 (V of 1861), under which "the Harijan" and "Muslim" inhabitants of the villages, in which an additional police force was stationed, were exempted from the obligation to bear any portion of the cost of tha.t force. It is stated tha.t the inhabitauts of certain villages

in the district of Jhunjhunu in the State of Rajasthan, harboured dacoits and receivers of stolen proper.ty, and The State of w,ere besides creating trouble between landlords and Rajasthan tenants as result of which there were serious riots in · .£~· 0 Oie rs the' locality in the course of which some persons· lost v. their lives. The State Government· therefore_. took Thaku' Prntap action uhder s. 15 of the Police Act: This Section St'ngh provides : . . Rajagopala

. . "Quartering of additional police in disturbed or , Ayyanga' J.

dangerous districts-

( I) It shall be lawful for the State.Government,:

· by proclamation to be notified in the .official Gazette, and in such other manner as the State Government shall direct, to declare that any area subject to its authority has been found to be in disturbed or dan-gerous state, or that, from the conduct of the inhabit-ants of such area, or of any class or section of them, it is expedient to increase the number of police.

(2) It shall thereupon be lawful for th~ Inspector-

General' of Police, or other officer authorised by the State Government in this behalf, with the sanction of the State Government, to employ any police-force in -addition to the ordinary fixed complement to be quartered in the areas specified in such proclamation as aforesaid.

· (3) Subject to the pro~isions of sub-section (5) of -this section, the cost of such additional police-force shall be borne by the inhabitants of such area descri-bed in the proclamation. .

( 4) The Magistrate of the district, after such en-quiry as he may deem necessary; shall apportion such cost among the inhabitants . who are, as aforesaid, liable to bear the same and who shall not have been ·exempted under the .next succeeding sub-section. Such apportionment shall be mad\) according to the Magistrate's judgment of the respective means within such area ·of such inhabitants;

(5) ,It shall be lawful for the State Government by order to exempt any persons or class or section of such · inhabitants from liability to bear any portion of such cost."

Sub-section (6) is omitted as not relevant.

Tiu Stale a/ Ua;a.(/han 6-Otl.rr.~ v. Thall.rfr p,atap S2nJ:h

Rajag(lpafa A,-_.,a11gar J

The notification by which these provisions were invoked and which is impugned in these proceedings was in these terms :-

" Whereas the Ra.jpra.mukh is sati8fied that tho area. shown in the schedule annexed hereto has been found to be in a.· disturbed and dangerous state;

Now, therefore, in the exercise of the authority

vested in him under Section 15(1) of the Police Act (V of 1861), the Ra.jpca.mukh i• pleased to declare that the 24 villages included in the said schedule shall be deemed to be disturbed area. for a. period of six months from the date of this notification.

Under sub-section 2 of the said section 15 of the

Police Act (V of 1861), the Rajpramukh is plea."ed to authorise the Inspector-Genera.I of Police to ewploy, at the cost of the inhabitants of tho said area. any Police force in addition to the ordinary fixed comple-ment quartered therein.

Under sub-section 5 of Hection 15 of the said Act

the Rajpramukh is further pleased to exempt. tho Ha.rijan aud Muslim inhabitants of these villages from liability to bear any portion of the cost on account of the posting of the additional Police force."

Theu followed the names of the 24 villages.

The respondeut-Thakur Pratap Singh being an inhabitant of Baragaon-one of these 24. villages, moved the High Court of l{a.ja.sthan for the issue of writ. or direction under Act. 226 of the Constitution impugning the validity of s. 15 of the Police Act and in particular of sub-s. 5 thereof and of the notification and praying for appropriate reliefs. The High Court repelled the wider contentions urged regarding the invalidity of s. 15 of the Police Act in genera.I a.s also of the powers conferred on the State Government to order the exemption of" any person or classes or sec-tions of such inhabitants" from liability to bear the cost of the additional police forcti. But the learned .Judges held that para. 4 of the notification which exempted" Ha.rija.n and :\Iuslim inhabitants of the villages" from the levy, was violative of the guara.ntee in Art.15(1) of the Constitutiou against discrimination 011 the grouncl of ca.ate or religion etc. which rea.da:

"The State S'ha.11 not discriminate against any

citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them."

and struck it down as unconstitutional.

The State of Ra.jastha.'1. who felt aggrieved by this order applied to the High Court for a. certificate under Art. 132(1) to enable it to file an appeal to this court and this having been granted, the appeal is now before us.

Learned Counsel for the State ma.de strenuous

effort to show that the exemption of the Harija.n & Muslim inhabitants of the villages, was, in the im-pugned notification, not based "only " on the ground of ' caste ' or ' religion' or the other criteria set out in Art. 15(1), but on the ground that ·persons belonging to these two communities were found by the State not to have been guilty of the cond not which necessitated the stationing of the additional police force. It was the same argument as was addressed to the High Court and was rejected by the learned Judges who observed:

"Now this is very strange argument that only persons of a. certain community or caste were law. abiding citizens, while the members of other communi-ties were not. Disturbing elements may be found among members of any community or religion just as much as there may be saner elements among members of that comm1.mity or religion."

The view here expressed by the learned Judges is, in our opinion, correct. Even if it be that the bulk of the members of the communities exempted or even all of them were law-abiding, it was not contended on behalf of the State that there were no peaceful and law-a.bid-ing persons in these 24 villages belonging to the other communities on whom the punitive levy had been directed to be ma.de. In para. 5(f) of the petition filed before the High Court the respondent had averred:

"That the aforesaid Notification is ultra vires of the Constitution of India as it discriminates amongst the Citizens of village on the La.sis of religion, race or caste, in as much as it makes distinction betll'eeu

The State of Rajasthan <f>. Others v.

Thakur Pratap Singh

Rajagopala Ayyangar ],

Tht Slalt of Rajasthan 6- OllJtrs v. Thahur Pralap Singh

Rajagopala .tyyangar j.

persons professing the Mohe.mme.de.n religion and others and also between persons who a.re Muslims a.nd Harija.ns by caste and the rest. It, therefore, con-travenes the provisions of Article 15 of the Constitu-tion of India."

The answer to this by the State was in these terms:

" The Ha.rija.n and Muslim inhabitants of these villages have been exempted from liability to bear any portion of the cost of the additional force not because of their• religion, race or caste but because they were found to be peace-loving and law-abiding citizens, in the 24 villages additional force has been posted."

It would be seen that it is not the case of the State, even at the stage of the petition before the High Court that there were no persons belonging to the other com-munities who were peace-loving and law.abiding, though it might very well be, that according to the State, great majority of these other communities were inclined the other way. If so, it follows that the. notification has discriminated against the law. a.biding members of the other communities and in favour of the Muslim and Harija.n communities,-(a.ssuming that every one of them was "peace-loving and law-abiding") on the basis only of "caste" or "religion". If there were other grounds they ought to have been stated in the notification. It is plain that the notification is directly contrary to the terms of Art. 15(1) and that para. 4 of the notification has incurred condemnation as viola.ting a. specific constitu-tional prohibition. In our opinion, the learned Judges of the Hfgh Court were chia.rly right in striking down this para.graph of the notification. The appeal fails and is dismissed. As the respond-

ent ha.s not appeared there will be no order as to costs .

.Appeal dismissed.