Kameshwar Prasad & Others v State of Bihar & Another, AIR 1962 SC 1166

The case of Kameshwar Prasad v State of Bihar is a landmark judgement by the Supreme Court of India addressing the interplay between government regulations and the fundamental rights enshrined under Part III of the Constitution. The judgement primarily focused on the constitutional validity of a rule prohibiting government employees from participating in demonstrations and strikes. The case provided clarity on the scope and application of fundamental rights for public servants while highlighting the permissible limits of state-imposed restrictions.

Facts of Kameshwar Prasad & Others v State of Bihar & Another

• Introduction of Section 4-A: In 1957, the Government of Bihar introduced Section 4-A into the Bihar Government Servants’ Conduct Rules, 1956, via a notification. The rule imposed a blanket prohibition on government servants from participating in any demonstrations or strikes related to service matters.
• Filing of Petition: Six government employees challenged the constitutional validity of Section 4-A in the Patna High Court. The appellants argued that the rule violated their fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression) and Article 19(1)(c) (right to form associations or unions).
• High Court Decision: The High Court upheld the validity of the rule, stating that the freedoms guaranteed under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(c) do not include the right to strike or participate in demonstrations. The Court categorised the rule as a reasonable restriction under Article 19(6) of the Constitution.
• Appeal to the Supreme Court: Dissatisfied with the High Court’s ruling, the appellants appealed to the Supreme Court after obtaining a certificate of fitness from the High Court under Article 132 of the Constitution.

Issues Before the Court

The key issues before the court in Kameshwar Prasad & Others v State of Bihar & Another were:

Primary Issue: Is Section 4-A of the Bihar Government Servants’ Conduct Rules, 1956, constitutionally valid?

Subsidiary Issues: 

• Does the prohibition on demonstrations and strikes violate fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(c)?
• Can the rights of government employees be subjected to absolute restrictions?
• Are peaceful demonstrations a legitimate part of the right to freedom of speech and expression?

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioners’ Contentions

• Violation of Fundamental Rights: Section 4-A imposes an absolute restriction on peaceful demonstrations and strikes, violating Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression) and Article 19(1)(c) (right to form associations).
• Nature of Peaceful Demonstrations: The appellants argued that peaceful demonstrations are a legitimate form of expressing grievances and fall under the ambit of freedom of speech and expression.
• Absolute Ban Unconstitutional: The prohibition was criticised as arbitrary and not a reasonable restriction as permitted under Article 19(6).
• Excessive Restriction: The rule, by completely disallowing demonstrations, curtailed the rights of government employees beyond permissible limits.

Respondents’ Contentions

• Reasonable Restrictions on Government Servants: The respondents argued that government servants are entitled to fundamental rights but their rights can be subject to restrictions due to the nature of their employment.
• Administrative Efficiency: Demonstrations and strikes disrupt administrative efficiency and public order. The rule aimed to ensure the smooth functioning of government operations. 
• Inseparability of Rule: The respondents contended that the legal and unconstitutional parts of the rule could not be separated, and striking down the rule would undermine the intent behind its introduction.
• Balancing Rights and Duties: The state argued that the responsibilities of government officials necessitate restrictions on their ability to participate in strikes or demonstrations, aligning with the larger public interest.

Kameshwar Prasad & Others v State of Bihar & Another Judgement

The Supreme Court in Kameshwar Prasad & Others v State of Bihar & Another delivered a well-reasoned verdict addressing the balance between fundamental rights and the duties of government servants.

Observations by the Court in Kameshwar Prasad v State of Bihar 

• Applicability of Fundamental Rights to Government Servants: The Court reaffirmed that Part III of the Constitution applies equally to government employees. Being in public service does not exempt individuals from enjoying fundamental rights.
• Peaceful Demonstrations Are Protected: Demonstrations, when peaceful and non-violent, are an integral part of the rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 19(1)(b) (right to assemble peacefully without arms). A complete prohibition on demonstrations is excessive and unconstitutional.
• Strikes Are Not a Fundamental Right: The Court in Kameshwar Prasad & Others versus State of Bihar & Another clarified that the right to strike is not recognised as a fundamental right under the Constitution. Strikes are distinct from peaceful demonstrations and may be regulated.
• Unconstitutionality of Section 4-A: Section 4-A of the Bihar Government Servants’ Conduct Rules, 1956, was struck down as ultra vires the Constitution. The provision violated the freedoms guaranteed under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) by imposing an absolute and blanket prohibition on demonstrations.

Rationale of the Court

• Reasonable Restrictions vs. Absolute Ban: Restrictions under Article 19(6) must strike a balance between individual freedoms and public interest. The Court held that while some restrictions on government servants are justified, a total ban on peaceful demonstrations exceeds constitutional limits.
• Scope of Article 19: Article 19 protects not only individual liberties but also the collective rights of citizens to express dissent, provided it does not disrupt public order or the sovereignty of the state.
• Rights vs. Duties of Government Servants: Government servants, as citizens, have rights under Part III but are also bound by their duties to ensure administrative efficiency. However, these duties cannot be used as a justification for curtailing their fundamental rights entirely.

Conclusion

The judgement in Kameshwar Prasad v State of Bihar is a landmark decision in Indian constitutional law, addressing the scope of fundamental rights for government employees. The Supreme Court struck down the impugned rule for being unconstitutional, reaffirming the right to peaceful demonstrations under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b). While recognising the need for reasonable restrictions, the Court clarified that such restrictions must not impose absolute bans. This case remains a significant reference point in understanding the balance between individual freedoms and the responsibilities of government servants.