Loading...
Loading...
Browse all stories on DeepNewz
VisitWhat will be the impact of the Madhya Pradesh HC's ruling on the RSS ban on future legal challenges by July 26, 2025?
Increase in challenges • 25%
Decrease in challenges • 25%
No change • 25%
Other • 25%
Publicly available court records and legal analyses
Madhya Pradesh HC Rules 1966 Ban on Govt Employees Joining RSS Unconstitutional After 5 Decades
Jul 26, 2024, 09:30 AM
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that the 1966 ban on government employees joining the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) was a constitutional violation. The court's decision came while disposing of a writ petition filed by retired Central government employee Purushottam Gupta, whose legal fight lasted 11 months, though the research and observations continued for decades. The bench of Justices Sushruta Arvind Dharmadhikari and Gajendra Singh noted that it took five decades for the central government to realize the mistake of imposing the ban. The court criticized the ban, which was enacted during Indira Gandhi's tenure, as a product of an 'emergency' and 'dictatorial' mindset. The court emphasized that the ban violated Articles 14 and 19 of the Indian Constitution and highlighted the lack of evidence supporting the ban. Purushottam Gupta expressed that he had witnessed colleagues being suspended or transferred for participating in 'seva' activities and that he restrained himself in respect of the rules.
View original story
Yes • 50%
No • 50%
Yes • 50%
No • 50%
BJP supports the decision • 25%
Congress opposes the decision • 25%
AIMIM opposes the decision • 25%
Other parties take a stance • 25%
Yes • 50%
No • 50%
No significant political action • 25%
Formal petition by Congress • 25%
Supreme Court challenge • 25%
Amendments to the DoPT order • 25%
Majority support the decision • 25%
Majority oppose the decision • 25%
Public opinion is divided • 25%
No significant public opinion • 25%
No significant impact • 25%
Increased bias towards RSS • 25%
Decreased neutrality • 25%
Other impacts • 25%
More restrictive rulings • 25%
More protective rulings • 25%
No significant influence • 25%
Mixed/Other • 25%
Adopt similar policies • 25%
Strengthen secular policies • 25%
No influence • 25%
Other • 25%
Supportive • 25%
Opposed • 25%
Neutral • 25%
No Official Statement • 25%
Positive Impact • 25%
Negative Impact • 25%
No Impact • 25%
Uncertain Impact • 25%
Yes • 50%
No • 50%
No • 50%
Yes • 50%
Indifferent • 25%
Mostly Positive • 25%
Mostly Negative • 25%
Mixed • 25%