Read Time: 06 minutes

The Delhi High Court today issued notice to the Delhi and Central governments on a petition challenging the vires and constitutional validity of provisions of the Civil Defence Act, 1968.

The division bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh has sought responses of the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) and Union of India through appearing through the Director General, Directorate of Fire Services, Civil Defence & Home Guards on the plea which challenges S. 6(2) and S. 14(1) of the Act on the ground that they leave no scope of judicial remedy on dismissal of members. 

S. 6(2) of the Act provides that, "Where the Controller is of opinion that the continued presence of any member of the Corps is undesirable, he may, without assigning any reason, summarily dismiss such member from the Corps."

Whereas under S. 14(1) it is provided that, "No order made in exercise of any power conferred by or under this Act shall be called in question in any court."

The plea states that while the former empowers the Controller of Civil Defence Corp to discharge any member without assigning any reason, Section 14(1) of the act puts an absolute bar against availing judicial remedy against any order made in exercise of any power conferred by or under the act - thereby, together they shut the doors for judicial review of any decision made under the provisions of the Act.

Facts

The petitioner, Farukh Khan stated that he had served the Corps since 2014 and completed various training courses as part of his service however, he was abruptly discharged from the membership of the Civil Defence Corps without assigning any reasons for such removal.

Therefore, the petitioner sought directions to the Delhi Government for his reinstatement and damages.

He informed in the petition that he was merely orally informed by the Deputy Controller that an FIR had been registered against executives of the JSM NGO under Section 188 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) for allegedly opening their office for distributing masks, during the Covid-19 lockdown.

Though the petitioner submitted that he was neither present at the place of incidence nor named in the FIR, he was informed that as Secretary of the said NGO, his continuation as a Civil Defence Corps member was "undesirable".

Section 6(2) of the Act has been stated to be ultra vires or in contravention of Article 19(g) of the Constitution of India, and violative of principles of natural justice. In support of the contention, it has been submitted that, "For many volunteers (of Civil Defence Corps)... the honorarium earned by working on call-out duties, are the only means of livelihood. The right to livelihood is a facet of the right to life."