Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(15) As we have said, Art. 19(2) uses the words "in the interests" of public order and not "maintenance of public order." The words "in the interests of public order" must mean and include any measure or direction or order which assists in or is conducive to the maintenance and preservation of public order. It is true, as was said by Mr. Singhvi, that there must be some nexus between the restriction contained in an impugned statute and public order. But then disaffection caused in a police-force, inducement given to a member or members thereof to withhold his or their services, or to commit breach of discipline mut be held to have connection with public order. "To withhold services" would mean not merely to resign from the force but to deliberately refuse, to forbear or to refrain from performing tasks and duties enjoined upon the members of the force by the rules governing them. "To withhold services," means something more aggravated than even committing breach of a disciplinary rule. It is thus impossible to say that poblic order can be maintained or that it would be consistent with the interests of public order if members of the police force were permittedto be disaffected or inducements to them to withhold their services or to commit breach of the rules of discipline were allowed. It was, however, urged by Mr. Singhvi that there are numerous rules of discipline, some of them vitl and te others not so vital, and breach of some of them, not vital, cannot be said to affect public order. In our view, that is not a correct approach. A rule ofdiscipline taken by itself without its context and effect in the light of the Code discipline as a whole might at fist sight appear not to be vital, but a removal of one of them would affect the entire structure of such a Code. It is obvious that the strength and the uility of a police-force is constituted is bound to be undermined and in that light public order as such is liable to be adversely affected.