http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THAKUR PRATAP SINGH.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 18/08/1960

BENCH: AYYANGAR, N. RAJAGOPALA BENCH: AYYANGAR, N. RAJAGOPALA DAS, S.K. HIDAYATULLAH, M. GUPTA, K.C. DAS SHAH, J.C.

CITATION:  1960 AIR 1208  CITATOR INFO :  NF         1976 SC 490  (182)

ACT: Discrimination  on grounds of caste and  religion-Government notification exempting Harijans and Muslims from payment  of additional police cost-Validity-Constitution of India,  Art. 15(1)-Police Act, 1861 (V of 1861), s. 15.

HEADNOTE: By para 4 of a notification issued under s. 15 of the Police Act the Rajasthan Government exempted the Harijan and Muslim inhabitants of certain villages from payment of the cost  of additional police force stationed therein.  The notification was challenged as being violative of the guarantee contained in Art. 15(i) of the Constitution of India. Held,   that   since  para  4  of   the   notification   had discriminated  against  the  law-abiding  members  of  other communities and in favour of the Muslims and Harijans on the grounds  of caste and religion, it was directly hit  by  the provision of Art. 15(i) of the Constitution and as such must be declared to be invalid.

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 231 of 1956. Appeal from the judgment and order dated September 11, 1953, of the Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench) at Jaipur in Writ Application No. 141 of 1952. M. S. K. Sastri and T. M. Sen, for the appellants. The respondent did not appear. 1960.   August 18.  The Judgment of the Court was  delivered by RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, J.-This appeal raises for consideration the   constitutional   validity  of  one  paragraph   of   a notification issued by the State of Rajasthan 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

the  obligation  to  bear any portion of the  cost  of  that force. It is stated that the inhabitants of certain villages 223 in  the  district of Jhunjhunu in the  State  of  Rajasthan, harboured dacoits and receivers of stolen property, and were besides creating trouble between landlords and tenants as  a result of which there were serious riots in the locality  in the  course  of which some persons lost  their  lives.   The State  Government therefore took action under s. 15  of  the Police Act.  This Section provides :       " Quartering of additional police in disturbed or dangerous districts- (1)  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 a disturbed or dangerous state, or that, from the conduct of the inhabitants 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 the  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 provisions of sub-section (5)  of  this section,  the cost of such additional police-force shall  be borne  by  the  inhabitants of such area  described  in  the proclamation. (4) The Magistrate of the district, after such enquiry 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  made 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. 224 The notification by which these provisions were invoked  and which is impugned in these proceedings was in these terms:-      "  Whereas  the Rajpramukh is satisfied that  the  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 Rajpramukh  is  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 pleased  to  authorise  the Inspector-General  of Police to employ, at the cost  of  the inhabitants of the said area any Police force in addition to the ordinary fixed complement quartered therein. Under  sub-section  5  of section 15 of  the  said  Act  the Rajpramukh  is  further pleased to exempt  the  Harijan  and Muslim inhabitants of these villages from liability to  bear any  portion  of the cost on account of the posting  of  the additional Police force."

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

    Then followed the names of the 24 villages.      The respondent-Thakur Pratap Singh being an  inhabitant of  Baragaon-one of these 24 villages, moved the High  Court of Rajasthan for the issue of a 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 general as also of the powers conferred on the State Government to order the exemption  of  " any person or classes or sections  of  such inhabitants  "  from  liability  to bear  the  cost  of  the additional  police force.  But the learned Judges hold  that Para  4  of the notification which exempted  "  Harijan  and Muslim  inhabitants  of the villages " from  the  levy,  was violative of the guarantee in Art. 15(1) of the Constitution against  discrimination on the ground of caste  or  religion etc. which reads. 225      " The State shall 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 Rajasthan 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 made a strenuous  effort  to show that the exemption of the Harijan & Muslim  inhabitants of  the  villages, was, in the  impugned  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  conduct   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 a very strange argument  that  only persons  of  a certain community or caste  were  law-abiding citizens,  while the members of other communities 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 community 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-abiding persons in these 24  villages belonging to the other communities on whom  the punitive levy had been directed to be made.  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  a village on the basis of  religion,  race  or caste, in as much as it makes a distinction between          29 226 persons  professing the Mohammadan religion and  others  and also  between persons who are Muslims and Harijans by  caste and the rest.  It, therefore, contravenes the provisions  of Article 15 of the Constitution of India." The answer to this by the State was in these terms:            "  The  Harijan and Muslim inhabitants  of  these villages  have  been  exempted from liability  to  bear  any

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

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 communities who were peace-loving and law-abiding, though it might very well be,  that according to the State, a great majority of  these other  communities were inclined the other way.  If  so,  it follows that the notification has discriminated against  the law-abiding  members of the other communities and in  favour of the Muslim and Harijan communities, (assuming 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 violating a specific  constitu- tional  prohibition.  In our opinion, the learned Judges  of the  High  Court were clearly right in  striking  down  this paragraph of the notification. The  appeal fails and is dismissed.  As the  respondent  has not appeared there will be no order as to costs.                                Appeal dismissed. 227