On July 9, the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) issued an order lifting the restriction on government employees taking part in the activities of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). Almost 42 years earlier, a ruling of the Supreme Court had paved the way for appointing individuals with an RSS background to government jobs. The case in question involved Ramashankar Raghuvanshi, a municipal school teacher in Madhya Pradesh, who had been dismissed by the state government because he “had taken part in ‘RSS and Jansangh activities’.” Subsequently, the government’s order of termination of service was quashed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which held that the order was of a “punitive character”. The ruling was then challenged by the state government in the Supreme Court. In its judgment, the top court said: “We think it offends the fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution to deny employment to an individual because of his past political affinities, unless such affinities are considered likely to affect the integrity and efficiency of the individual’s service.” This ruling by Justices Fazl Ali and O Chinappa Reddy has been the precedent in administrative law that ideological inclinations, even towards the RSS, cannot be the sole ground for denying public employment. However, the ruling made it clear that once employed by the state, a person cannot engage in political activities, and that she would be subject to all rules made in conformity with the Constitution. While service rules and conditions govern the conduct after the individual takes office, the ruling, in effect, protects adverse conclusions against an individual with an RSS background. “Neither the RSS nor the Jansangh is alleged to be engaged in any subversive or other illegal activity nor are the organisations banned. Most people, including intellectuals, may not agree with the programme and philosophy of the Jansangh and the RSS or for that matter, of many other political parties and organisations of an altogether different hue. But that is irrelevant. Everyone is entitled to his thoughts and views. There are no barriers. Our Constitution guarantees that. In fact members of these organisations continue to be members of Parliament and State Legislatures. They are heard often with respect, inside and outside the Parliament. What then was the sin that the Respondent committed in participating in some political activity before his absorption into Government service? What was wrong in his being a member of an organisation which is not even alleged to be devoted to subversive or illegal activities?,” the SC said in the ruling.
