Plea in Delhi HC challenges provisions of Civil Defence Act, 1968

A petition has been moved in Delhi High Court challenging the constitutional validity of Section 6(2) and Section 14(1) of the Civil Defence Act, 1968.

A petition has been moved in Delhi High Court challenging the constitutional validity of Section 6(2) and Section 14(1) of the Civil Defence Act, 1968. The plea stated that section 6(2) of the act empowers the Controller of Civil Defence Corp to discharge any member without assigning any reason, if they are of the opinion that continued presence of any member of the Corps is undesirable, and 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.

The Petitioner Farukh Khan stated that he had served the Corps since 2014 and has completed various training courses during his tenure with the Civil Defence but on March 23, 2020, he was discharged from the membership of the Civil Defence Corps without assigning any reason. "The appeal preferred against the discharge order was also rejected without assigning any reason," plea states

Petitioner sought court's direction to Delhi Government to reinstate him in call-out duty along with damages for loss of duty allowance with effect from the date of discharge. Petitioner's Lawyer Rajiv Agarwal stated that section 6(2) of the act violates the right of the petitioner to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation as guaranteed under Article 19(g) of the Constitution of India.

"Section 6(2) of the Act excludes the application of the principle of natural justice without citing any exceptional circumstances for which the provision could be applied," the plea added. The members of Civil Defence are being engaged by the government of NCT of Delhi to perform work of regular and perennial nature in its various offices.

"It is submitted that members of Civil Defence are being deployed in DM, SDM and Tehsildar offices to perform the works which are usually done by permanent government employees. For many volunteers, including the petitioner, 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," added the plea. (ANI)

(This story has not been edited by Devdiscourse staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)