Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Whereas the Rashtriya Swayam Sewak Sangh (hereinafter referred to as "RSS") has been encouraging and aiding its followers to promote or attempt to promote, on grounds of religion disharmony or feelings of enmity haired or ill-will between different religious communities;
And where as the RSS has been making imputations and assertions that members of certain religious communities have alien religions and cannot, therefore, be considered nationals of India, thereby causing and likely to caused disharmony or feelings of enmity or hatered or ill-will between such members and other persons;
No. 11/14034/2(iv)/92-15(DVJ) T. N. Srivastava, Jt. Secretary

2. The application for interim relief, which is for consideration contains the following prayers :

a) for staying the operation or enforcement of the impugned notification No. S.O. 90l(E) dated 10-12-1992 declaring Rashtriya Swayam Sewak Sangh (RSS) to be an unlawful association.
b) for directing that the locks wherever they have been put on the alleged "Karyalas" or "Ashrams" of RSS be removed as there is no authority under the law for the same and the State by itself and through its subordinate be restrained from interfering with the persons residing therein."
The objections being of preliminary nature, are considered first as the grant of interim relief is very much integrated to their determination.

6. The first objection is whether the petitioner, who is an individual member of the RSS, has locus standi for seeking interim relief of the nature pressed for, when the petition is not by or on behalf of the RSS, the unlawful association. In this connection, learned counsel submitted that it is the RSS, the unlawful association, whose, right, if any, is put in jeopardy could be entitled to claim interim relief and not the petitioner, whose individuality qua the RSS does not exist.

14. Next an unsuccessful, attempt to justify the publication of the direction issued under the later part of the proviso in the Official Gazette, is made by submitting that the publication was made in the Official Gazette not because of any statutory requirement under the proviso but because of there having developed a joint requirement owing to formation of opinion under sub-sec. (1) regarding the character of the RSS that it has become an unlawful association as well as formation of opinion under the proviso regarding existence of such circumstances of emergent nature which rendered it necessary Tor the Central Government to declare the RSS to be unlawful, with immediate effect, which led to publication in the Official Gazette and further if there was no joint, simultaneous and composite act in the matter of formation of opinion there was no requirement of the publication of the direction, as contemplated under the proviso, in the Official Gazette. A close scrutiny of the proviso discloses that under sub-sec. (1) the formation of the opinion is confined to the fact as to whether any association is or has become unlawful. It is after formation of the opinion that the declaration is made by notification in the Official Gazette declaring the association to be unlawful. The words "in the Official Gazette" in sub-sec. (1) are purposely used as the General Clauses Act does not define the word "notification" as has been defined under the U.P. General Clauses Act, which means a notification published in the Official Gazette under sub-sec. (1) declaring the RSS as an unlawful association. There could not be any direction under the proviso for the notification to have effect unless there exists notification issued under sub-sec. (1) declaring the association to be an unlawful association and it is thereafter that as opinion is to be formed for declaring the association as unlawful, with immediate effect, as the declaration made under sub-sec. (1) came in abeyance by legislative mandate under sub-sec. (3). However, the argument was attempted to be strenghtened by relying on the, decision of the Supreme Court in S. Sundaram Filial v. V. R. Pattabiraman, AIR 1985 SC 582 that the proviso is an independent sub-section. Court, as per material contained in paras 26, 35, 36 and 42 propunded :--