Delhi High Court seeks Central, Delhi govt response on plea challenging provisions of Civil Defence Act, 1968

The Delhi High Court on Monday sought responses from Central and the Delhi governments in a public interest litigation (PIL) petition challenging multiple provisions of the Civil Defence Act, 1968 on the ground that it gave unbridled powers to the Controller of Civil Defence Corp to arbitrarily discharge members from service, without any justification [Faruk Khan vs Directorate of Civil Defence, Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.].The plea by one Faruk Khan challenged the constitutional validity of Sections 6(2) and 14(1) of the Civil Defence Act, 1968."Section 6 (2) of the Act empowers the Controller of the Civil Defence Corp to discharge any member without giving any reason, if they feel the member is undesirable," the plea filed through advocate Rajiv Aggarwal said.Further, Section 14 1(1) puts an absolute bar on using any judicial remedies against an order passed in exercise of power conferred by or under the Act, the petition added.A Division Bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh issued notice and posted the case for further hearing on November 29.The case of the petitioner was that he had joined the Corps in 2014 and undergone various training courses during his tenure but he was arbitrarily discharged from his membership on March 23, 2020 without furnishing any proper reason.Advocate N Bhushan, who appeared on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that Civil Defence is not a voluntary service as its members are often deployed in various government offices and perform the work done by permanent government employees.It was also contended that the petitioner as a member of the Civil Defence Corps, had served a 'call-out duty' period of five years in the Civil Defence office in Delhi's North West District."Only members get the call-out duty, as per Section 6 of the Act," Bhushan submitted.Appearing on behalf of the Delhi government, Advocate Satyakam responded,"The petitioner (Faruk) claims that he is doing social service but there are allegations of moral turpitude on him. This corps is for people doing selfless service. It does not fit into the definition of ' service' as per Article 310 of the Constitution of India. In fact, it's a voluntary thing designed by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and any citizen of India can join this service and contribute for the benefit of society. Even the allowance paid to the personnel is not an honorarium but a mere token of encouragement." At this point, Justice Jyoti Singh drew the attention of the counsel to the implications of Section 6(2) of the Act which speaks of "subjective satisfaction" based on an objective evaluation."You cannot just throw out anybody like that. You are telling the Court this is a voluntary service that ends whenever you want it to to. That's not the case. There is a statute governing these services. The statute says subjective satisfaction on an objective evaluation," the judge remarked. Satyakam responded that he was not trying to come in way of the petitioner but was instead assisting the Court."Notice upon respondents. Advocate Niraj Kumar accepts notice on behalf of respondent no. 2. Counsel for respondents also seeks time to get instructions and file an affidavit. The same shall be granted to them. Notice stands returnable on November 29," the Court ordered after hearing the parties.