Kameshwar vs State of Bihar - Case Analysis

Introduction of Kameshwar vs State of Bihar

The case of Kameshwar Prasad vs State of Bihar (1962) is a landmark judgement that impacted the interpretation of fundamental rights. The case arose from a notification issued by the Government of Bihar which introduced Section 4-A in the Bihar Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1956. This provision prohibited government servants from participating in demonstrations or strikes related to their service matters, raising important constitutional questions about the rights of public employees. Six appellants challenged the validity of this rule before the Patna High Court, claiming it violated their fundamental rights under Article 19 of the Constitution. The High Court upheld the rule, leading the appellants to appeal to the Supreme Court. The decision of the Supreme Court ultimately expanded the understanding of fundamental rights related to freedom of speech and assembly highlighting the significance of the right to demonstrate as an integral part of these freedoms.

📚 Exclusive Free Judiciary Notes For Law Aspirants

Subjects	PDF Link
Download the Free Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita PDF Created by legal experts	Download Link
Grab the Free Law of Contract PDF used by Judiciary Aspirants	Download Link
Get your hands on the most trusted Free Law of Torts PDF	Download Link
Crack concepts with this Free Jurisprudence PDF crafted by top mentors	Download Link

Historical Context and Facts of Kameshwar vs State of Bihar

The present case revolves around a notification issued by the Government of Bihar introducing Section 4-A in the Bihar Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1956. The said provision prohibited government servants from participating in any demonstrations or conducting strikes related to their service matters.

Challenge to the Rule

Six appellants filed a petition before the High Court of Patna under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the validity of the provision on several grounds including the violation of Article 19 of the Constitution.

Contentions of the Appellants

The Appellants contended that the rule violated their fundamental rights under Article 19 and the rule exceeded the rule-making power of the government as provided under Article 309 of the Constitution.

Observation by the High Court

The High Court of Patna observed that the freedoms guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 19(1)(c) do not include the right to resort to a strike or the right of government servants to participate in demonstrations. The High Court opined that the rules were reasonable restrictions on the fundamental freedoms granted under Part III of the Constitution of India.

Appeal to the Supreme Court

Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court, the appellants filed an appeal before the Supreme Court of India after obtaining a certificate of fitness from the Patna High Court under Article 132 of the Constitution.

Issue addressed in Kameshwar vs State of Bihar

The main question which was addressed in this case-

• Whether Section 4-A introduced into the Bihar Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1956, is constitutionally valid?

Legal Provisions involved in Kameshwar vs State of Bihar

Article 13 of the Constitution of India

Article 13 deals with laws inconsistent with or in derogation of the fundamental rights. It states that-

1. All laws in force in the territory of India immediately before the commencement of this Constitution, in so far as they are inconsistent with the provisions of this Pan, shall, to the extent of such inconsistency, be void.
2. The State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges the rights conferred by this Part and any law made in contravention of this clause shall, to the extent of the contravention, be void.
3. In this article, unless the context otherwise requires-

1. law includes any Ordinance, order, bye-law, rule, regulation, notification, custom or usage having in the territory of India the force of law
2. laws in force includes laws passed or made by Legislature or other competent authority in the territory of India before the commencement of this Constitution and not previously repealed, notwithstanding that any such law or any part thereof may not be then in operation either at all or in particular areas.

4) Nothing in this article shall apply to any amendment of this Constitution made under article 368.

Article 19 of the Constitution of India

Article 19(1) provides-

1. a) Freedom of speech and Expression
2. b) Freedom of Assembly
3. c) Freedom to form Association or Unions or Co-operative Societies
4. d) Freedom of Movement
5. e) Freedom to reside and settle 
6. g) Freedom of Profession, occupation, trade or business

Article 33 of the Constitution of India

Parliament may, by law, determine to what extent any of the rights conferred by this Part shall, in their application to-

1. the members of the Armed Forces
2. the members of the Forces charged with the maintenance of public order
3. persons employed in any bureau or other organisation established by the State for purposes of intelligence or counterintelligence
4. persons employed in, or in connection with, the telecommunication systems set up for the purposes of any Force, bureau or organisation referred to in clauses (a) to (c), be restricted or abrogated so as to ensure the proper discharge of their duties and the maintenance of discipline among them.

Article 132 of the Constitution of India

Article 132 provides-

1. An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgement, decree or final order of a High Court in the territory of India, whether in a civil, criminal or other proceeding, if the High Court certifies under article 134A that the case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of this Constitution.

Where such a certificate is given, any party in the case may appeal to the Supreme Court on the ground that any such question as aforesaid has been wrongly decided.

Article 226 of the Constitution of India

Article 226 deals with the power of the High Courts to issue certain writs

Article 309 of the Constitution of India

Article 309 deals with the Recruitment and conditions of service of persons serving the Union or a State.

In Kameshwar Prasad vs State of Bihar (1962), the Supreme Court addressed an appeal against the decision of the Patna High Court concerning the constitutional validity of Section 4-A of the Bihar Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1956, which prohibited government servants from participating in demonstrations. 

The Court in this case observed that while there are special provisions for government officers under Part III of the Constitution there is no explicit exclusion from the protections. It was contended that the government officers are excluded from these rights was rejected.

The Court in this case also discussed whether the right to demonstration is protected under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 19(1)(b) of the Constitution. The Court defined Demonstration as a way of communicating ideas to others and stated that it can take various forms that fall within the scope of the freedoms guaranteed under these Articles. 

The Supreme Court accepted the contention that fundamental rights under Part III apply to government servants. The Court declared Section 4-A unconstitutional for violating Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) and it also clarified that the right to strike is not a fundamental right.

Conclusion

In Kameshwar vs State of Bihar (1962) the Supreme Court held that Section 4-A of the Bihar Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1956 is unconstitutional and it violates the fundamental rights to freedom of speech and expression and the right to assemble peacefully. The Supreme Court in this case overturned the decision of the Patna High Court and highlighted that the right to demonstrate falls within the protections of Article 19(1)(a) and (b). The decision in this case broadened the scope of these fundamental rights in India.