RESTRICTIONS UPON THE FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION AND THE TEST OF REASONABLENESS
Keywords:
Equality, Freedoms, Restrictions, Association, Reasonableness of Restrictions, Bill of Rights, Constitutional laws, Public order, Fundamental rights, ‘Security of the State’.Abstract
Freedom of association is the basic feature of any pluralistic society. Though, association, like other concepts, is not an absolute concept. The state may have a number of valid reasons for wishing to regulate its exercise. To do so is not necessarily incompatible with the idea of freedom of association, provided the restrictions chosen leave the basic substance of the right intact. However, Governments do sometimes succumb to the temptation to confuse justification with expediency, and the substance of the fundamental rights cannot always be preserved by relying on the benevolence of state administrations. If it is accepted that decisions on economic and labour issues should not be monopolised by the state but that workers and employers should also play an important role in this respect, it is self-evident that the latter must be given the right to set up organisations for the defence of their occupational interests and that these organisations must be granted the rights which are necessary for them to act effectively. Although the basic principles of freedom of association apply to workers and employers alike, in practice usually problems arise in connection with labour unions rather than with employers’ organisations. The main reason for this is probably that many Governments are more concerned about the potential influence of trade unions on national life and have therefore attempted to control them more closely It is important therefore to inquire into the limits imposed by the ILO upon the discretion of Government to restrict the exercise of freedom of association. However, the present study is an attempt to analyze the understanding of the attitude of various facets of freedom of forming an association and its legal and reasonable restriction vis-a-vis the historical development, hence; it limits itself only to the study of the general rights of political and non-political associations and how much the same have been protected through Courts’ decisions.
The present study is based on doctrinal method of research. A comprehensive review of existing literature, journals, articles, reports, mixed with magazines, newspapers articles are primarily relied in order to get clear updated picture of the current position of the Constitutional law regime and its conflicts with rapid pace of modern legal development. Case laws of various Courts are basically referred.
References
1. For a conceptual analysis of freedom of association, see, Von Prondzynski, F., Freedom of Association and Industrial Relations: A Compar ative Study, London 1987, pp.10-16 and 225-26.
2. See Harold J. Laski, ‘ Freedom of Association”, Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, VI, pp 447-50 (1931).
3. NAACP v Claiborne Hardware Co. 458 U.S. 898 (1982)
4. Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co . (1963) 372 U.S. 539 (555-58)
5. Bryant v. Zimmerman, (1929) 278 U.S. 63.
6. Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co . supra notes 4 at p 172.
7. Giboney v. Empire Storage Co., (1949) 336 U.S. 490 (495).
8. International Union v. Wisconsin Employment Board, (1949) 336 U.S. 245 ; Meat Drivers v. U.S. (1962) 371 U.S. 94.
9. Shelton v. Tucker, (1960) 364 U.S. 479.
10. National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People v. Alabama , (1958) 361 U.S. 516.
11. Bates v. Little Rock, (1960) 361 U.S. 516.
12. Bates v. Little Rock supra note 180.
13. Gibson v. Florida Legislative Committee , (1963) 372 U.S. 539 (555-58)
14. Bryant v. Zimmerman supra note 173.
15. Bridges v. Wixon, (1945) 326 U.S. 135.
16. Schneiderman v. U.S. ( 1943) 320 U.S. 118.
17. Barenblatt v. U.S. (1958) 360 U.S. 100 (128-9)
18. Dennis v. U.S. (1951) 341 U.S. 494 (509).
19. Adler v. Board of Education , (1952) 342 U.S. 485.
20. Garner v. Board of Public Works , (1951) 341 U.S. 716.
21. Harisiades v. Shaughnessy , (1952) 342 U.S. 580; Carlson v. Landon, (1952) 342 U.S. 524.
22. Uphaus v. Wyman, (1958) 360 U.S. 72 (79)
23. Uphaus v. Wyman, (1958) 360 U.S. 72 (79)
24. American Association v. Douds, (1950) 339 U.S. 382 (494).
25. American Assocn. V. Douds , (1950) 339 U.S. 382 (494).
26. Wieman v. Updegraff , (1952) 344 U.S. 183.
27. Yates v. U.S., (1956) 354 U.S. 298 (304).
28. Speiser v. Randall, (1958) 357 U.S. 513.
29. The Internal Security Act (McCarran Act), 1950, S. 4(a).
30. Pennsylvania v. Nelson, (1955) 350 U.S. 497.
31. Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners, (1956) 353 U.S. 232 (246). JCLJ (2020) 81–90 © Law Journals 2020. All Rights Reserved Page 90
32. Dayton v. Dulles, (1957) 357 U.S. 144.
33. Kent v. Dulles, (1957) 357 U.S. 116.
34. Sweezey v. New Hamsphire , (1957) 354 U.S. 234 (265)
35. By the Constitution (Fifth amendment) Act, 1963, the expression ‘(in the interests of) sovereignty and integrity of India” was inserted in Art. 19(4) as additional grounds of restrictions on fr eedom of association in India.
36. See S.A. Commercial Standt v. Emilio Padua, Fallos 229, p. 368.
37. Anglo Iranian Oil Co. v. Soc. Unione Prelolifera Oriente , (1954) Giur. I, II, p.305.
38. In re Di Pietro, (1954) Rep. Gen. Ann. At p. 1883, cited by D.K. Sen, ‘India n Constitution’, op. cit., at p. 345.
39. Ramesh Thappar v. The State of Madras, A.I.R., 1950 S.C. 124; 1050 S.C.R. 594.
40. Suptdt. Central Prison v. Ram Manohar Lohia, A.I.R., 1960 S.C. 633.
41. Ibid., at p. 641; See also Ghosh v. Joseph, A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 812 (814).
42. Cantwell v. Connecticut , (1940) 310 U.S. 296.
43. Ghosh v. Joseph, A.I.R . 1963 S.C. 812 (814-15)
44. See Basu, ‘ Commentary on the Constitution of India, op. cit., p. 618.
45. In re Curatola (1953) Giur, Cass. Pen., 427, cited by D.K. Sen, ’Indian Constitutio’,op. cit., at 349.
46. Mehtab Jan v. Municipal Committee, P.L.D., 1958 Lah., 929.
47. Act VII of 2013.
48. Act II of 1912.
49. Act IV of 1956.
50. Act IX of 1932.
51. Act XV of 1920.
52. Act XVI of 1926.
53. Indian Pena l Code 1860 (Passed during British Regime)
54. Act XIV of 1908.
55. Row v. State of Madras, A.I.R . 1951 Mad. 147 (154), affirmed by State of Madras v. Row, A.I.R. 1952 S.C. 196: 1952 S.C.R. 597.
56. Chintaman Rao v. State of M.P ., A.I.R. 1951 S.C. 118.
57. 1952 S.C.R. 597: A.I.R. 1952 S.C. 196.
58. Ibid. (1952 S.C.R. 597) at 607.
59. Ibid., at p. 608.
60. The breakdown of this restraint in the U.S. Supreme Court led to a serious conflict between the President Roosevelt and the Supreme Court, in which the President called upo n the Congress to pass a law reforming the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court saved itself by reversing its previous decisions. For an interesting account of this conflict, see ‘ Struggle for Judicial Supremacy’ by Robert H. Jackson, who was the Attorney Gene ral in President Roosevelt’s administration and later became a judge of the U.S. Supreme Court. As a learned American writer has said, ‘the Court’s power has been maintained by a wise refusal to employ it in unequal combat’. See Roche, ‘ Judicial Self-restraint’ 49 American Political Science Rev. (1955), 722.
61. Krishna v. State, A.I.R. 1953 T.C. 174; Chhadyamurty v. State, A.I.R. 1952 T.C. 217.
62. Nawabzada Nasrulla Khan v. Govt. of West Pakistan, PLD 1965, Lah. 642.
63. Ramkrishnaiah v. Dt. Board , A.I.R. 1952 Mad., 253.
64. State of Madras v. Row, A.I.R. 1952 S.C. 196.
65. Kulkarni v. State of Bombay, A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 73.
66. Ghosh v. Joseph, A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 812.
67. Fallos 11, p. 139.
68. (1904) 198 U.S. 45, 49 L. ed. 937 Cite this Article Dilip Pandey. Restrictions upon the Freedom of Association and the Test of Reasonableness. Journal of Constitutional Law and Jurisprudence. 2020; 3(1): 81–90p.
