{"id":104266,"date":"1983-02-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1983-02-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-ramashankar-raghuvanshi-on-21-february-1983"},"modified":"2018-05-21T13:40:54","modified_gmt":"2018-05-21T08:10:54","slug":"state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-ramashankar-raghuvanshi-on-21-february-1983","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-ramashankar-raghuvanshi-on-21-february-1983","title":{"rendered":"State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Ramashankar Raghuvanshi & … on 21 February, 1983"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Ramashankar Raghuvanshi & … on 21 February, 1983<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1983 AIR 374, \t\t 1983 SCR (2) 393<\/div>\n
Author: S M Fazalali<\/div>\n
Bench: Fazalali, Syed Murtaza<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nRAMASHANKAR RAGHUVANSHI & ANOTHER\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT21\/02\/1983\n\nBENCH:\nFAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA\nBENCH:\nFAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA\nREDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1983 AIR  374\t\t  1983 SCR  (2) 393\n 1983 SCC  (2) 145\t  1983 SCALE  (1)134\n\n\nACT:\n     Constitution of  India,  1950-Art.\t 311-Seeking  police\nreport on  past political activity and faith of a person for\npublic employment-Whether  offends articles 14 and 16 of the\nConstitution.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     Consequent upon  the taking  over by  the Government of\nthe municipal  school in  which the  respondent worked\tas a\nteacher, he  was absorbed  in Government  service. The order\nstated that his absorption in Government service was subject\nto verification\t of his\t antecedents. Sometime later, on the\nbasis of  the report  of the  Superintendent of\t Police that\nbefore being  absorbed in  Government service the respondent\nhad taken  part in RSS and Jan Sangh activities his services\nwere terminated\t on the\t ground that he was not a fit person\nto be entertained in Government service.\n     On the  view that\tthe  order  of\ttermination  of\t his\nservice\t was   of  a   punitive\t character,  passed  without\ncomplying  with\t  the  provisions   of\tArt.   311  of\t the\nConstitution, the High Court quashed that order.\n     Dismissing the special leave petition under Art. 136 of\nthe Constitution,\n^\n     HELD:\nper S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.\n     The special  leave\t petition  should  be  dismissed  in\nlimine. [394 H]\nper o. Chinnappa Reddy, J.\n     The respondent  cannot  be\t turned\t back  at  the\tvery\nthreshold on  the ground  of his  past political activities.\nOnce he\t becomes a  Government servant, a he becomes subject\nto  the\t  various  rules  regulating  his  conduct  and\t his\nactivities must\t naturally be  subject to  all rules made in\nconformity with the Constitution. [402 E-P]\n     The determination\tof the\tpeople of  this\t country  to\nconstitute India into a democratic republic and to secure to\nall its\t citizens \"liberty  of thought,\t expression. belief,\nfaith and  worship; Equality  of status and opportunity\" has\nbeen written  into the\tarticles of  the Constitution in the\nshape of fundamental\n394\nrights and  they are  what makes India a democratic republic\nand what  marks India  from authoritarian  or police states.\nThe right  to form  associations  and  unions,\tamong  other\nrights, is  declared as\t a fundamental\tright; yet the State\nGovernment sought  to deny  employment to  him on the ground\nthat the  report of  a police  officer stated  that he\tonce\nbelonged to some political organisation.\n\t  [395 F-H]\n     The action\t sought to  be taken  against the respondent\nwas not any disciplinary action on the ground of his present\ninvolvement in political activities contrary to some service\nconduct rule  nor was  there any  allegation  that  he\tever\nparticipated in\t any illegal  or subversive activity or that\nhe was a perpetrator of violent deeds. All that was said was\nthat before  he was  absorbed in  Government service  he had\ntaken part  of RSS  and Jan  Sangh  activities.\t What  those\nactivities were\t had never  been disclosed.  Neither the RSS\nnor  the  Jan  Sangh  was  alleged  to\tbe  engaged  in\t any\nsubversive or other illegal activities, nor were they banned\norganisations. Most  people may not agree with the programme\nand  philosophy\t of  the  Jan  Sangh  or  RSS  but  that  is\nirrelevent. Everyone  is entitled  to his thought and views.\nMembers of  these organisations\t continue to  be members  of\nParliament and State legislatures. They are heard often with\nrespect both  inside and outside the Parliament. [395 H; 396\nA-D]\n     The whole\tidea of\t seeking  a  police  report  on\t the\npolitical  faith  and  the  past  political  activity  of  a\ncandidate for  public employment  appears to cut at the very\nroot of the fundamental rights of equality of opportunity in\nthe matter  of employment  and freedom\tof  association.  It\noffends the fundamental rights guaranteed by articles 14 and\n16 of  the Constitution\t to deny employment to an individual\nbecause\t of  his  past\tpolitical  affinities,\tunless\tsuch\naffinities are considered likely to affect the integrity and\nefficiency of the individual's service.\n\t  [397 D-E]\n     Wieman v. Updegraff, 344 U.S. 183 & Speisar v. Randall,\n357 U.S. 573, referred to.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CIV1L  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION:  Petition\tfor  Special
\nLeave to Appeal (Civil) No. 4679 of 1980,.\n<\/p>\n
     From the  Judgment and  order dated the 24th July, 1979
\nof the\tHigh Court  of Madhya  Pradesh at  Jabalpur in Misc.
\nPetition No. 119 of 1975.\n<\/p>\n
     Gopal Subramaniam and D. P. Mohanty for the Petitioner.
\n     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     FAZAL ALI.\t J., Since  we are  clearly of the view that
\nthe special  leave petition  should be\tdismissed in 1975 on
\nmerits, I  would not like to go any further into the details
\nof the\tfacts of  the case. r would, therefore, refrain from
\nexpressing any\topinion\t on  the  observations\tmade  by  my
\nlearned brother Chinnappa Reddy, J.\n<\/p>\n
395<\/span><\/p>\n
     CHINNAPPA REDDY,  J. This special leave petition has to
\nbe dismissed.  There is no merit in it. The respondent was a
\nteacher employed in a municipal school. The school was taken
\nover by\t the Government\t in June  1971. The  respondent\t was
\nabsorbed in  Government service\t by an\torder dated February
\n28, 1972.  The order recited that the absorption was subject
\nto ‘verification  of antecedents’  and medical\tfitness\t The
\nservices of  the respondent  were terminated  on November S,
\n1974. Though  the order\t terminating  the  services  of\t the
\nrespondent did\tnot purport to stigmatise him in any manner,
\nit was\tnot disputed  before the  High Court  and it  is  no
\nlonger disputed\t before us  that the  order was founded on a
\nreport made  by the  Superintendent of\tPolice,\t Raigarh  on
\nOctober 31,  1974, to the effect that the respondent was not
\na fit  person to be entertained in Government service, as he
\nhad taken  part in  ‘RSS and Jan Sangh activities’. The High
\nCourt held that the order of termination of service was of a
\npunitive character  and quashed\t it on\tthe ground  that the
\nprovisions of  Art. 311\t of the\t Constitution had  not\tbeen
\ncomplied with.\tThe State of Madhya Pradesh has sought leave
\nto appeal to this court under Art. 136 of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
     India is  not a  police state.  India Is  a  democratic
\nrepublic. More\tthan 30\t years ago, on January 26, 1950, the
\npeople\tof   India  resolved  to  constitute  India  into  a
\ndemocratic republic  and  to  secure  to  all  its  citizens
\n“Liberty of  thought, expression, belief, faith and worship;
\nEquality  of   status  and   opportunity”,  and\t to  promote
\n“Fraternity, assuring  the dignity  of the individual”. This
\ndetermination of the people, let us hope, is not a forgotten
\nchapter of  history. The determination has been written into
\nthe articles of the Constitution in the shape of Fundamental
\nRights and  they are  what makes India a democratic republic
\nand what  marks India  from authoritarian  or police States.
\nThe right  to freedom of speech and expression, the right to
\nform  associations   and  unions,   the\t right\tto  assemble
\npeaceably and without arms. the right to equality before the
\nlaw and the equal protection of the right laws, the right to
\nequality of opportunity in matters relating to employment or
\nappointment to\tany office  under  the\tState  are  declared
\nFundamental Rights.  Yet the  Government of  Madhya  Pradesh
\nseeks to  deny employment  to the  respondent on  the ground
\nthat the  report of  a Police  officer stated  that he\tonce
\nbelonged to  some political organisation. It is important to
\nnote  that  the\t action\t sought\t to  be\t taken\tagainst\t the
\nrespondent is  not any\tdisciplinary action on the ground of
\nhis present involvement in
\n396<\/span>
\npolitical  activity   after  entering  the  service  of\t the
\nGovernment, contrary  to some  Service Conduct\tRule. It  is
\nfurther to  be\tnoted  that  it\t is  not  alleged  that\t the
\nrespondent ever\t participated in  any  illegal,\t vicious  or
\nsubversive activity.  There is\tno hint\t that the respondent
\nwas or is a perpetrator of violent deeds or that he exhorted
\nanyone to commit violent deeds. There is no reference to any
\naddition to  violence or  vice\tor  any\t incident  involving
\nviolence, vice\tor other  crime. All  that is  said is\tthat
\nbefore he  was absorbed\t in Government service, he had taken
\npart in\t some ‘RSS  or Jan  Sangh  activities.’\t What  those
\nactivities were\t has never  been disclosed.  Neither the RSS
\nnor tho\t Jan Sangh  is\talleged\t to  be\t engaged  in  any  ,
\nsubversive  or\t other\tillegal\t  activity;  nor   are\t the
\norganisations banned.  Most people, including intellectuals,
\nmay not\t agree with the program me and philosophy of the Jan
\nSangh and  the\tRSS  or,  for  that  matter  of\t many  other
\npolitical  parties   and  organisations\t  of  an  altogether
\ndifferent hue.\tBut that is irrelevant. Everyone is entitled
\nto his\tthoughts and  views.  There  are  no  barriers.\t Our
\nConstitution guarantees\t that.\tIn  fact  members  of  these
\norganisations continue to be members of Parliament and State
\nLegislatures. They  are heard, often with respect inside and
\noutside the  Parliament. What  then was\t the  sin  that\t the
\nrespondent committed  in  participating\t in  some  political
\nactivity before his absorption into Government service. What
\nwas wrong  in his being a member of an organisation which is
\nnot even  alleged to  be devoted  to subversive\t or  illegal
\nactivities. The whole idea of seeking a Police report on the
\npolitical  faith  and  the  past  political  activity  of  a
\ncandidate for  public employment  appears to our mind to cut
\nat the\tvery root  of the  Fundamental Rights of equality of
\nopportunity  in\t  the  matter\tof  employment,\t freedom  of
\nexpression and\tfreedom of  association. It  is a  different
\nmatter altogether  if a\t police\t report\t is  sought  on\t the
\nquestion of the involvement of the candidate in any criminal
\nor subversive  activity in order to find out his suitability
\nfor public  employment. But  why seek a police report on the
\npolitical faith\t of a candidate and act upon it. Politics is
\nno crime.  Does it  mean that  only True  Believers  in\t the
\npolitical faith of the party in power for the time being are
\nentitled to  public  employment\t ?  Would  it  not  lead  to
\ndevastating results,  if such a policy is pursued by each of
\nthe Governments\t of the\t constituent States  of India  where
\ndifferent political  parties may  happen to wield power, for
\nthe time  being ?  Is public  employment reserved  for\t“the
\ncringing and  the craven”  in the words of Mr. Justice Black
\nof the\tUnited States  Supreme Court ? Is it not destructive
\nof the dignity of the
\n397<\/span>
\nindividual mentioned  in the  preamble of the Constitution ?
\nIs it  to be  put against  a youngman  that before  the cold
\nclimate of  age and  office freezes  him into immobility, he
\ntakes part in some political activity in a mild manner. Most
\nstudents and  most youngmen are exhorted by national leaders
\nto take\t part in  political activities\tand if\tthey do\t get
\ninvolved in some form of agitation or the other, is it to be
\nto  their   ever-lasting  discredit  i\tSometimes  they\t get
\ninvolved  because   they  feel\t strongly  and\tbadly  about
\ninjustice, because  they  are  possessed  of  integrity\t and
\nbecause they  are  fired  by  idealism.\t They  get  involved
\nbecause they  are  pushed  into\t the  forefront\t by  elderly
\nleaders who  lead and  occasionally mislead them. Should all
\nthese youngmen\tbe debarred  from  public  employment  ?  Is
\nGovernment service  such a  heaven that\t only angels  should
\nseek entry  into it  ? a We. do not have the slightest doubt
\nthat the whole business of seeking police reports, about the
\npolitical  faith,   belief  and\t association  and  the\tpast
\npolitical activity  of a  candidate for public employment is
\nrepugnant to the basic rights guaranteed by the Constitution
\nand entirely misplaced in a democratic republic dedicated to
\nthe ideals set forth in the preamble of the Constitution. We
\nthink it  offends the Fundamental Rights guaranteed by Arts.
\n14 and\t16 of  the Constitution\t to deny  employment  to  an
\nindividual because  of his past political affinities, unless
\nsuch  affinities   are\tconsidered   likely  to\t affect\t the
\nintegrity and  efficiency of  the individual’s\tservice.  To
\nhold otherwise\twould be  to  introduce\t ‘McCarthysim’\tinto
\nIndia.\t ‘McCarthyism’ is  obnoxious to the whole philosophy
\nof our constitution. We do not want it.\n<\/p>\n
     In the  fifties the  practice of baiting and crucifying
\nteachers, public servants and a host of others in the United
\nStates, as  Communists came to be known as ‘McCarthyism. Its
\nbaleful effects were described by late President Eisenhower,
\nhimself an anticommunist as follows :-\n<\/p>\n
\t  ‘McCarthyism took its toll on many individuals and
\n     on the  Nation. No one was safe from charges recklessly
\n     made from\tinside the  walls of congressional immunity.
\n     Teachers,\tGovernment  employees,\tand  even  ministers
\n     became vulnerable. Innocent people accused of Communist
\n     associations or  party membership\thave not to this day
\n     been able\tto clear  their names  fully. For  a few, of
\n     course, the  cost was  little-where the  accused was  a
\n     figure who\t stood high  in public\ttrust  and  respect,
\n     personal damage,  if any  could be\t ignored or  laughed
\n     away. But where, without
\n398<\/span>
\n     proof cf guilt, or because of some accidental or early-
\n     in life  association with\tsuspected persons,  a man or
\n     woman had\tlost a\tjob or\tthe confidence\tand trust of
\n     superiors and  associates, the  cost was  often tragic,
\n     both emotionally and occupationally” .\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The late President also said,
\n\t  “They…fear other  people’s ideas-every new idea.
\n     They…\ttalk  about censoring  tho sources  and\t the
\n     communication of  ideas… without\t exhaustive  debate-
\n     even  heated   debate-of  ideas  and  programmes,\tfree
\n     Government would  weaken and  wither. But\tif we  allow
\n     ourselves to  be persuaded\t that every  individual,  or
\n     party, that  takes issue  with our\t own convictions  is
\n     necessarily   wicked    or\t  treasonous-then   we\t are
\n     approaching the end of freedom’s road…”
\n     In Wieman\tV. Updegraff  (1), Black  J. said, in one of
\nthe notorious loyalty oath cases and, it is worth quoting in
\nfull.\n<\/p>\n
\t  “History  indicates  that  individual\t liberty  is
\n     intermittently subjected  to extraordinary perils. Even
\n     Countries dedicated to government by the people are not
\n     free from such cyclical dangers. The first years of our
\n     Republic marked such a period. Enforcement of the Alien\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     – and  Sedition Laws  by zealous  patriots\t who  feared
\n     ideas made\t it highly  dangerous for  people to  think,
\n     speak,  or\t  write\t critically  about  government,\t its
\n     agents, or its policies, either foreign or domestic our
\n     Constitutional liberties  survived the  ordeal of\tthis
\n     regrettable period\t because there\twere influential men
\n     and powerful  organized groups  bold enough to champion
\n     the undiluted right of individuals to publish and argue
\n     for their\tbeliefs\t however  unorthodox  or  loathsome.
\n     Today however,  few individuals  and  organizations  of
\n     power and\tinfluence argue\t that unpopular advocacy has
\n     this same wholly unqualified immunity from governmental
\n     interference. For\tthis and  other reasons\t the present
\n     period of-fear  sees more ominously dangerous to speech
\n     and press than was that of the Alien and Sedition Laws,
\n     Suppressive laws  and practices  are the  fashion.\t The
\n     Oklahoma
\n399<\/span>
\n     oath statute  is but  one manifestation  of a  national
\n     network A of laws aimed at coercing and controlling the
\n     minds  of\tmen.  Test  oaths  are\tnotorious  tools  of
\n     tyranny. When  used to shackle the mind they are, or at
\n     least they\t should be,  unspeakably odious\t to  a\tfree
\n     people. Test  oaths are  made still more dangerous when
\n     combined  with  bills  of\tattainder  which  like\tthis
\n     Oklahoma statute  impose pains  and penalties  for past
\n     lawful associations and utterances.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     “Governments  need\t and  have  ample  power  to  punish
\n     treasonable acts  But it does not follow that they must
\n     have a  further power  to punish  thought and speech as
\n     distinguished from\t acts. Our  own free  society should
\n     never forget  that laws  which stigmatize\tand penalize
\n     thought and  speech of  the unorthodox  have a  way  of
\n     reaching, ensnaring and silencing many more people than
\n     at first  intended. We  must have freedom of speech for
\n     all or we will in the long run have it for none but the
\n     cringing and  the craven. And I cannot too often repeat
\n     my belief\tthat the right to speak on matters of public
\n     concern must be wholly lost.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     “It seems\tself-evident  that  all\t speech\t criticizing
\n     government rulers\tand challenging\t current beliefs may
\n     be dangerous  to the status quo. With full knowledge of
\n     this danger  the Framers  rested our First Amendment on
\n     the premise  that the slightest suppression of thought,
\n     speech,  press,   or  public  assembly  is\t still\tmore
\n     dangerous. This  means that  individuals are guaranteed
\n     an\t undiluted   and  unequivocal  P  right\t to  express
\n     themselves on  questions of current public interest. It
\n     means that Americans discuss such questions as of right
\n     and not  on sufferance  of legislatures,  courts or any
\n     other governmental\t agencies. It  means that courts are
\n     without power  to appraise and penalize utterances upon
\n     their notion  that these utterances are G dangerous. In
\n     my view  this uncompromising interpretation of the Bill
\n     of Rights\tis the one that must prevail if its freedoms
\n     are to  be saved.\tTyrannical totalitarian\t governments
\n     cannot safely allow their people to speak with complete
\n400<\/span>
\n     freedom. I\t believe with  the  Framers  that  our\tfree
\n     Government can”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     In another loyalty oath case, Garner v. Board of Public
\nWorks, (l) Douglas, J had this to say:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “Here the  past conduct  for which  punishment  is
\n     exacted is\t single-advocacy within\t the past five years
\n     of\t the  overthrow\t of  the  Government  by  force\t and
\n     violence.\tIn  the\t other\tcases  the  acts  for  which
\n     Cummings and  Garland stood  condemned covered  a wider
\n     range and\tinvolved some  conduct which  might be vague
\n     and uncertain. But those differences, seized on here in
\n     hostility to  the constitutional provisions, are wholly
\n     irrelevant. Deprivation  of a man’s means of livelihood
\n     by reason\tof past conduct, not subject to this penalty
\n     when  committed,\tis  punishment\t whether  he   is  a
\n     professional man,\ta day labourer who works for private
\n     industry, or  a Government employee. The deprivation is
\n     nonetheless unconstitutional  whether  it\tbe  for\t one
\n     single past act or a series of past acts … … …
\n\t  “Petitioners were disqualified from office not for
\n     what they\tare today,  not because\t of any program they
\n     currently espouse\t(cf. Grende  v. Board of Supervisors
\n     341 U.  S. 56)  not because  of  standards\t related  to
\n     fitness for  the office,  cf: Dcnt v. West Virginia 129
\n     U.S. 114;\tHawker v.  New York,  170 U.S.\t189, but for
\n     what they once advocated……………
\n     In the same case, Frankfurter, J. Observed:
\n\t  “The needs  of security  do not require such curbs
\n     on\t what\tmay   well   be\t  innocuous   feelings\t and
\n     associations. Such\t curbs\tare  indeed  self-defeating.
\n     They  are\t not  merely   unjustifiable  restraints  on
\n     individuals. They\tare  not  merely  productive  of  an
\n     atmosphere of  repression uncongenial  to the spiritual
\n     vitality of a democratic society. The inhibitions which
\n     they engender  are hostile\t to the\t best conditions for
\n     securing  a   high-minded\tand   high-spirited   public
\n     service.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  In Lerner v. Casey, (a) Douglas, J. said:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
401<\/span><\/p>\n
\t  “We deal  here only  with a  matter of  belief. We
\n     have no  evidence in  either case\tthat the employee in
\n     question  ever   committed\t a   crime,  ever  moved  in
\n     treasonable opposition  against this  country. The only
\n     mark against them-if it can be called such-is a refusal
\n     to\t answer\t  questions   concerning   Communist   Party
\n     membership.  This\tis  said  to  give  rise  to  doubts
\n     concerning the  competence of the teacher in the Beilan
\n     case  and\t doubts\t as   to  the\ttrustworthiness\t and
\n     reliability of  the  subway  conductor  in\t the  Lerner
\n     case…”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  “There are  areas where  government may  not probe
\n     But government  has no  business penalizing  a  citizen
\n     merely  for-his   beliefs\tor   associations.   It\t  is
\n     government action\tthat we\t have here. It is government
\n     action that the Fourteenth and First Amendments protect
\n     against …  … …  Many join association, societies,
\n     and fraternities with less than full endorsement of all
\n     their aims.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  In Speiser v. Randall, (1) Black, J said:
\n\t  “This case  offers just another example of a wide-
\n     scale effort  by Government  in this  country to impose
\n     penalities and  disabilities on  everyone who  is or is
\n     suspected of being a ‘Communist’ or who is not ready at
\n     all times\tand all places to swear his loyalty to State
\n     and Nation.  .  I\tam  convinced  that  this  whole  of
\n     business of  penalizing people  because of\t their views
\n     and expressions  concerning  Government  is  hopelessly
\n     repugnant to  the principles of Freedom upon which this
\n     Nation was\t founded ..  Loyalty oaths, as well as other
\n     contemporary ‘security  measures,’ tend  to stifle\t all
\n     forms of unorthodox or unpopular thinking or expression\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     -the kind\tof thought  and expression  which has played
\n     such a vital and beneficial role in the History of this
\n     Nation. The result is a stultifying conformity which in
\n     the end may well turn out to be more destructive to our
\n     free society  than foreign\t agents could  ever hope  to
\n     be.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     In the same case, Douglas, J., said:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
402<\/span><\/p>\n
\t  “Advocacy which  is in no way brigaded with action
\n     should always be protected by the First Amendment. That
\n     protection should\textend even to the ideas we despise.
\n     As Mr.  Justice Holmes,  wrote in dissent in Gitlow. v.
\n     New York. (l) ‘If in the long run the beliefs expressed
\n     in proletarian dictatorship are destined to be accepted
\n     by the  dominant forces  of  the  community,  the\tonly
\n     meaning of\t free speech  is that  they should  be given
\n     their chance  and have  their  way’.  It  is  time\t for
\n     government-state or  federal-to become  concerned\twith
\n     the citizen’s  advocacy when his ideas and beliefs move
\n     into the realm of action”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     We may  end our  excursion\t to  the  United  States  of
\nAmerica with  a reference  to the words of wisdom uttered by
\nThomas Jefferson more than two centuries ago:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “.. the  opinions of\tmen are\t not the  object  of
\n     civil government,\tnor under  its jurisdiction;.. it is
\n     time  enough   for\t the   rightful\t purposes  of  civil
\n     government\t for   its  officers   to   interfere\twhen
\n     principles break  out into overt acts against peace and
\n     good order.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     We are  not for  a moment\tsuggesting that\t even  after
\nentry into  Government service,\t a person may engage himself
\nin political  activities. All  that we say is that he cannot
\nbe turned  back at  the very  threshold on the ground of his
\npast political\tactivities. Once  he  becomes  a  Government
\nservant, he  becomes subject to the various rules regulating
\nhis conduct  and his activities must naturally be subject to
\nall rules made in conformity with the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
     Let us  once more\tremained ourselves  of what  Gurudev
\nRabindranath Tagore said:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “Where the  mind is  without fear  and the head is
\n     held high: where knowledge is free,……\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
403<\/span><\/p>\n
\t  Where the  clear stream of reason has not lost its
\n     way into the dreary desert sand of dead habit:
\n\t  Where the  mind is  led forward  by thee into ever
\n     widening thought and action
\n\t  let my country awake”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       The application is dismissed.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
P.B.R\t\t\t\t\t Petition dismissed.\n404<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Ramashankar Raghuvanshi & … on 21 February, 1983 Equivalent citations: 1983 AIR 374, 1983 SCR (2) 393 Author: S M Fazalali Bench: Fazalali, Syed Murtaza PETITIONER: STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. RESPONDENT: RAMASHANKAR RAGHUVANSHI & ANOTHER DATE OF JUDGMENT21\/02\/1983 BENCH: FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA BENCH: FAZALALI, SYED […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-104266","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of Madhya Pradesh vs Ramashankar Raghuvanshi & ... on 21 February, 1983 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-ramashankar-raghuvanshi-on-21-february-1983\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Ramashankar Raghuvanshi & ... on 21 February, 1983 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-ramashankar-raghuvanshi-on-21-february-1983\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1983-02-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-05-21T08:10:54+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-ramashankar-raghuvanshi-on-21-february-1983#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-ramashankar-raghuvanshi-on-21-february-1983\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Ramashankar Raghuvanshi & … on 21 February, 1983\",\"datePublished\":\"1983-02-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-21T08:10:54+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-ramashankar-raghuvanshi-on-21-february-1983\"},\"wordCount\":3040,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-ramashankar-raghuvanshi-on-21-february-1983#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-ramashankar-raghuvanshi-on-21-february-1983\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-ramashankar-raghuvanshi-on-21-february-1983\",\"name\":\"State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Ramashankar Raghuvanshi & ... on 21 February, 1983 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1983-02-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-21T08:10:54+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-ramashankar-raghuvanshi-on-21-february-1983#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-ramashankar-raghuvanshi-on-21-february-1983\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-ramashankar-raghuvanshi-on-21-february-1983#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Ramashankar Raghuvanshi & … on 21 February, 1983\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Ramashankar Raghuvanshi & ... on 21 February, 1983 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-ramashankar-raghuvanshi-on-21-february-1983","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Ramashankar Raghuvanshi & ... on 21 February, 1983 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-ramashankar-raghuvanshi-on-21-february-1983","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1983-02-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-05-21T08:10:54+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-ramashankar-raghuvanshi-on-21-february-1983#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-ramashankar-raghuvanshi-on-21-february-1983"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Ramashankar Raghuvanshi & … on 21 February, 1983","datePublished":"1983-02-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-21T08:10:54+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-ramashankar-raghuvanshi-on-21-february-1983"},"wordCount":3040,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-ramashankar-raghuvanshi-on-21-february-1983#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-ramashankar-raghuvanshi-on-21-february-1983","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-ramashankar-raghuvanshi-on-21-february-1983","name":"State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Ramashankar Raghuvanshi & ... on 21 February, 1983 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1983-02-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-21T08:10:54+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-ramashankar-raghuvanshi-on-21-february-1983#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-ramashankar-raghuvanshi-on-21-february-1983"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-ramashankar-raghuvanshi-on-21-february-1983#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Ramashankar Raghuvanshi & … on 21 February, 1983"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/104266","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=104266"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/104266\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=104266"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=104266"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=104266"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}