The Delhi High Court recently dismissed a PIL challenging the constitutional validity of sub-clause (1) to Clause 3 of the order dated Mar 18, 2015, passed by the Secretary, Revenue and Divisional Commissioner, Revenue in the matter of recruitment of Civil Defence Volunteers to the extent it makes ‘Resident of Delhi’ as a necessary condition to become eligible for being a Civil Defence Volunteer.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed that “while enrolling a person as a civil defence volunteer, the authorities are certainly competent to issue necessary directions in respect of the place of residence of a candidate”.

“A person who is residing in South India does not know the geography of Delhi and if recruited as civil defence volunteer, and in case of emergency he will get lost in Delhi instead of reaching to the place where emergency has occurred”, clarified the Bench.

The Petitioner appeared in person, whereas ASC Sameer Vashisht appeared on behalf of the Respondent.

The Bench stated that the main aim and object of the Civil Defence Act, of 1968 was to cater to the immediate need in case any unseen event takes place by providing immediate relief in the locality and, in those circumstances, the necessity arose for constituting a Civil Defence Service.

The High Court noted that the Act of 1968 and the Rules framed thereunder made it very clear that the Civil Defence volunteers/ corps were expected to be the first responders in case of disaster situations or hostile enemy attacks.

Thus, the High Court stated that as the Civil Defence Volunteers were the first responders in case of disaster situations, a volunteer residing in the same locality or in a neighboring locality would certainly be able to respond immediately as and when directed by the Divisional Commissioner.

The Bench stated that it was not the case of the Government that a resident of some other State could not be enrolled as a Civil Defence Volunteer, and if a person from some other State was residing in Delhi holding any of the documents required could certainly become a civil defence volunteer in Delhi.

“Thus, by no stretch of imagination, it can be held that the condition in regard to place of residence is violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India as has been argued before this Court”, added the Bench.

Referring to the decision in the case of S.K. Mukherjee v. Union of India [(1994) 5 SCC 498], the High Court observed that the power was rightly exercised by the Divisional Commissioner who was certainly competent to issue such an office order in the matter of enrolment of civil defence volunteers and that the State Government was the competent authority to lay down the service conditions in respect of the members of the corps.

While navigating through Regulation 16 of Regulations of 1968, the High Court stated that it specifically empowers the competent authority to take appropriate steps as deemed fit and reasonably necessary for preventing the contravention of, or securing the observance of the Regulations as prescribed or any order issued thereunder.

Hence, the Bench refused to interfere with the order issued by the Divisional Commissioner and dismissed the petition.

Cause Title: Anand v. Government of NCT of Delhi and Anr. [Neutral Citation Number - 2023: DHC: 3544-DB]

Click here to read/download Judgment



Delhi High CourtChief Justice Satish Chandra SharmaJustice Tushar Rao Gedela

Pankaj Bajpai