Before Centre’s notification on RSS, a retired govt official in Madhya Pradesh took the matter to court

He said he “intends to be integrally involved in the social, cultural and religious activities undertaken by the RSS. However, the impugned office memorandums issued by the MHA are an impediment for the petitioner to gratify his desires at the dusk of his life”.

Speaking to The Indian Express, Gupta said he served in the Central Warehousing Corporation and retired two years ago. He said he decided to challenge the order after he grew bored of sitting at home. “I worked for eight hours every day for the government for years. I should have the freedom to serve any organisation. I have seen the RSS work closely. They work in the searing heat, in the cold and in the rains for the country. Why should I not join? So I challenged this order,” he said.

He was represented by his lawyer Manish Nair, who argued that the rules barring Gupta from joining the RSS were violative of his fundamental rights. He argued that there was discrimination since state government employees were free to participate in RSS events, and only central government employees were barred.

During the hearing, the court expressed displeasure over the fact that the case was pending since the central government did not file its reply to the petition. According to court records, the case was heard on six occasions, and each time, the Union of India sought more time to file its reply.

On May 22, Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta appeared virtually before the court along with Additional Secretary Manoj Kumar Dwivedi and Additional Secretary, MHA, Praveen Vashista. They assured the court that a reply would be filed in four weeks’ time, which was allowed by the court.

A senior prosecution department official attached with the central government told The Indian Express, “On July 10, we filed an affidavit before the court informing that the central government had lifted its restrictions and removed the RSS from the order. The case has not yet been decided; it will be in the coming days. We cannot say if this case was a reason for lifting of the ban. There are many such cases across the country and there may be other factors.”

On July 11, the Bench of Justices S A Dharmadhikari and Gajendra Singh reserved its order in the case.

A senior lawyer from the central government said, “In our reply, we mentioned that in the impugned order, the RSS has been removed by the central government (as a political organisation with which government officials cannot be associated).”

Another source from the state government’s prosecution branch said, “From our side, we had informed the court that in 2006, the Shivraj Singh Chouhan-led BJP government had removed restrictions on state government employees participating in RSS events.” He said it “appears the order is a result of this case”.

During the hearing on May 6, the court had noted that in two separate hearings, the central government was given a last indulgence to file its reply in the matter, “failing which the opportunity to do the same shall stand closed”.

It observed, “Ideally, after giving last indulgence twice, the court would have proceeded to consider the interim relief prayed for by the petitioner, being uninfluenced by the convenience exhibited by the counsel for Union of India in choosing not to file any reply. However, looking to the reliefs claimed in the writ petition, we tremendously felt that the writ petition cannot be adjudicated without an informed properly worded counter affidavit/reply filed by respondent No. 1 (Union of India).”

The court said it was “inclined to pass order on the interim relief as prayed for by the petitioner”, but could not, considering that the “nature of relief claimed by the petitioner challenging various office memorandums issued by the Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and/or the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT)”.

“These office memorandums are stated to have been issued in furtherance of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, now forming the integral part of sub-rules 12, 12A and 13 of Rule 5 of the CCS Rules. The constitutional validity of these Rules have been put to assail on behalf of the petitioner which was issued way back in the 1960s and 1970s, almost half a century now,” the court said.

The court had on May 6 directed the Union of India’s most senior officers to be present before it for “enabling efficacious adjudication of the dispute at hand” as it was “left with no other option”.

The court had also asked the respondents to file a detailed affidavit within 15 days, failing which the secretaries and additional secretaries concerned would be summoned by the court virtually to explain the delay.