This article has been written by ms. Nainci rani, a student studying B. A. LL. B. (H.) From Teerthanker mahaveer college of law and legal studies , Moradabad . The author is a 3^rd year law student. 

• Introduction : 

Article 19 (1) (b) guarantees to all citizens of india right “to assemble peaceable without arms”. The right of assembly includes the right to hold meetings and to take out processions. This is however subject to the following restrictions:

1. The assembly must be peaceable
2. It must be unarmed 
3. Reasonable restrictions can be imposed under clause 3 of article 19.

• Freedom of assembly:

This right of assembly is implied in the very idea of the Democratic government. The right of assembly thus includes right to hold meetings and to take out processions. This right, like other individual right is not absolute but restrictive. The assembly must be non-violent and must not cause any breach of public peace. If the assembly is disorderly or riotous then it is not protected under article 19(1) (b) and reasonable restrictions may be imposed under clause (3) of article 19 in the interests of ‘sovereignty and integrity of india’ Or ‘public order’. 

• When a lawful assembly becomes unlawful : 

Article 19(1) (b) saves existing reasonable. If an assembly becomes unlawful it can be dispersed. Chapter VII of the Indian penal code lays down the conditions when an assembly becomes “unlawful”. Under section 141 of the Indian penal code, an assembly of five or more persons becomes an unlawful assembly if the common object of the persons composing assembly is –

1.  to resist the execution of any law or legal process, 
2. To commit any mischief or criminal trespass, 
3. Obtaining possession of any property by force, 
4. To compel a person to do what he is not legally bound to do or omit which he is legally entitled to do, 
5. By means of criminal force of show of criminal force to overawe the government or any public servant in the exercise of his lawful powers. 

An assembly which was not unlawful when assembled may subsequently become unlawful if it becomes violent or is likely to result in disturbance. Under section 129 of the criminal procedure code, 1973,such an assembly may an ordered to be dispersed if the disturbance to the public peace is Reasonably apprehended. Section 151 of the indian penal code makes it an offense not to disperse after a lawful command to disperse has been given. 

• Freedom to form association [article 19(1) (c) and 19(4) ] :

Article 19 (1) ( c) of the Constitution of india guarantees to all its citizens the rright “to form association of unions or co-operative societies”. Under clause (4) of article 19,however , the state may by law impose reasonable restrictions on this right in the interest of public order or morality or the sovereignty and integrity of india. 

The right of association pre-supposes organisation. It is an organisation or permanent relationship between its members in matters of common concern. It thus includes the right to form companies, societies, partnership, trade union, and political parties. The right guaranteed is not merely the right to form association but also to continue with the association as such. The freedom to form association implies also the freedom to form or not to form, to join or not to join, an association or union. 

In Damayanti v. Union of India,  the validity of hindi sahitya sammelan act, 1962 was challenged as violative of article 19 (1) ( c) . The petitioner was a member of an association. The act changed the composition of the association and introduced new members. The result of this alteration was that the members who voluntarily formed the association were now compelled to act in the association with other members in whose admission they had no say. The S. C. Held – the act violated the rights of the original members of the society to form an association guarantee under article 19 (1) ( c) . “The right to form an association”. The court said. “necessarily implies that the person forming the association have also the right to continue to be associated with only those whom they voluntarily admit in the association. Any law by which members are introduced in the voluntary association without any option being given to the members to keep them out, or any law which takes away the membership of those who have voluntarily joined it, will be a law violating the right to form an association”.

• Right of association and armed forces : 

In O. K. A. NAIR V. UNION OF INDIA, an important question arose Whether “civilian” employees, designated as ‘non-combatants’ such as cooks, Chowkidars, laskers, barbers, mechanics, boot-makers, tailors, etc, attached to the defense establishment have a right to form associations or unions. The appellants were members of the civil employees unions in the various centers of the defence establishment. They challenged that the impugned action was violative of their fundamental rights to form associations or unions under article 19 (1) ( c) of the Constitution. 

• Restrictions on the freedom of association : 

The right of association, like other individual freedom, is not unrestricted clause (4) of article 19 empowers the state to impose reasonable restrictions on the right of freedom of Association and union in the interest of ‘public order’ or ‘morality’ or ‘sovereignty or integrity’ of india. It saves existing laws in so far as they are not inconsistent with fundamental rights of association. 

In Haji mohd. V. District board, malda, a restriction requiring a teacher to take perior permission to engage in political activities is a reasonable restrictions. It aimed at preventing teachers from getting mixed up with political institutions. For, a teacher is not merely a citizen but he has to be under certain terms and discipline of employment.

                   But a government order requiring municipal teachers not to join unions other than those officially approved was held to impose prior restraint on the right to form association and union. Which was in the nature of administrative censorship, and hence invalid. 

• Conclusion : 

The supreme court has been rather restrained in crafting jurisprudence that enables the exercise of the freedom of assembly and association. The court has not considered the need to provide for greater conceptual clarity on the two necessity of the two freedoms. Nor has the court engaged in a discussion of principles that must guide it when Interpreting these freedoms instead the court has engaged in a case by case analysis-while Crafiting jurisprudence as it sees fit based on categories or classes of bearers of these freedoms. For instance, instead of engaging in a discussion on strikes, it creates classes of citizens who cannot strikes -lawyers or government employees or members under the essential services regimes. The supreme court is deeply aware of section 144 CrPC  and outside of procedural safeguards it offers no other jurisprudence to prevent its misuse. The case where it dose take exception to its imposition is when tge assembly in question is asleep. 

• Reference : 

1. Dr. J. N. Pandey 
2. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2574555
3. https://blog.ipleaders.in/article-19-indian-constitution/
4.  Fundamental rights and  their enforcement

Aishwarya Says:

Law students often face problems, which they cannot share with their friends and families. We have started a column on our website Student’s Corner. In this column we are talking to several law students about the challenges that they face. Students who are interested in participating in the same, can fill this Google Form.

IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN PARTICIPATING IN THE SAME, DO LET ME KNOW.

The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.

If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems to aishwarya@aishwaryasandeep.com

Join our  Whatsapp Group for latest Job Opening