# [1961] 1 S.C.R. 222

- **Citation:** [1961] 1 S.C.R. 222
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1961
- **Case number:** CIVIL Al'l'E[,f.ATF. ,JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 231 of 1956
- **Bench:** 8. I\. lJAS, M. Hidayatullah, K. c. DAS GUPTA, J.C. Shah, N. Rajaoopala Ayyanoar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/1961-1-s-c-r-222-2162
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Discrimination on groZ4nds of caste and religion-Govertunt'll
110/ijicalio" exempting Harijans a11d Muslims from payment of addiliPnal police cos/-1-alidity-Conslilulion of India. Ari. 15(1) --
I'olicc Act, 1861 (I. of 1861), s. 15.
Ry para 4 of a notification issued under s. 15 of the Police
Act the Rajasthan Go\'ernment exempted the Harijan and Musli1n.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 Soptl'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 a 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
-
I. S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
223 ·
in the district of Jhunjhunu in the State of Rajasthan,
harboured dacoits and receivers of stolen proper.ty, and
w,ere 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
The State of
Rajasthan
.£~· 0 Oie rs
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 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 th~ InspectorGeneral' 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 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 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
6Otl.rr.~
v.
Thall.rfr p,atap
S2nJ:h
Rajag(lpafa
A,-_.,a11ga

## Text

A ugwsl 18.
222
SCPREME COUHT HEPORTS
[1961]
THE 8TATE OF HA,JASTHAI\ AND ORS.
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 addiliPnal police cos/-1-alidity-Conslilulion of India. Ari. 15(1) --
I'olicc Act, 1861 (I. of 1861), s. 15.
Ry para 4 of a notification issued under s. 15 of the Police
Act the Rajasthan Go\'ernment exempted the Harijan and Musli1n.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 Soptl'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 a 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
-
I. S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
223 ·
in the district of Jhunjhunu in the State of Rajasthan,
harboured dacoits and receivers of stolen proper.ty, and
w,ere 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
The State of
Rajasthan
.£~· 0 Oie rs
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 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 th~ InspectorGeneral' 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 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 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
6Otl.rr.~
v.
Thall.rfr p,atap
S2nJ:h
Rajag(lpafa
A,-_.,a11gar J
224
SVPRE111E COl:RT REPOHTS
[1961]
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 complement 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 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 genera.I a.s 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 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:
l
1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
225
"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 a strenuous
effort to show that the exemption of the Harija.n &
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 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 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 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.biding 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 a village on the La.sis of religion, race
or caste, in as much as it makes a distinction betll'eeu
29
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.
226
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1961]
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, contravenes the provisions of Article 15 of the Constitution 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 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.
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 constitutional 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 respondent ha.s not appeared there will be no order as to costs .
.Appeal dismissed.
I
...
I '