Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
31st March 1952
M. PATANJALI SASTRI, C.J.I., MAHAJAN, B.K. MUKHERJEA, S.R. DAS AND CHANDRASEKHARA AIYAR, JJ.
The State of Madras., Appellant
Versus
V. G. Row, Respondents;
The Union of India and the State of Travancore-Cochin, Interveners.Case No. 90 of 1951.
Advocates appeared
Swaminathan and Shri R. Ganapathy Iyer, Advocates, with him), instructed by Shri P. A. Mehta, Agent, for Appellant; Shri C. R. Pattabhi Raman, Advocate, instructed by Shri S. Subramanian, Agent, for Respondent; Shri M. C. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India (Shri G. N. Joshi, Advocate, with him), instructed by Shri P. A. Mehta, Agent, for the Union of India; Shri T. N. Subramania Iyer, Advocate-General of Travancore-Cochin (Shri M. R. Krishna Pillai, Advocate, with him), instructed by Shri P. A. Mehta, Agent, for the State of Travancore.
-held reviewing power by Supreme Court in America exercised by “due process clause”. Review of law in India, Power exercised by Court in discharge of duty plainly laid upon them-particularly as regards fundamental right court assigned role of sentinel on quivive.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:
The Supreme Court of India has the constitutional authority to review legislation to determine its conformity with the Constitution, particularly with fundamental rights, and this review is a judicial function explicitly laid down in the Constitution (!) .
The case involved the constitutionality of a specific section of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, which authorized the declaration of associations as unlawful based on certain grounds, including interference with law and order or interference with the administration of law (!) (!) (!) .
The impugned law permitted the government to declare associations unlawful without requiring the association to be given adequate notice or opportunity to be heard, and without providing a judicial review process for such declarations (!) (!) .
The procedures under the law included notification in the official gazette, but did not mandate personal service or other effective communication to the association or its members, raising concerns about the fairness of the process (!) (!) .
The Court emphasized that restrictions on fundamental rights, such as the right to form associations, must be reasonable and subject to judicial scrutiny, especially when they involve deprivation of a constitutional right (!) (!) .
The Court noted the importance of examining whether restrictions are reasonable by considering factors such as the circumstances, the manner of imposition, and the potential impact on rights, with the understanding that reasonableness is determined on a case-by-case basis (!) .
The Court held that the particular section of the law in question was unconstitutional because it granted the executive arbitrary power to declare associations unlawful without sufficient safeguards for due process, thus exceeding the limits of reasonable restrictions permissible under the Constitution (!) (!) .
The Court reaffirmed its role as a guardian of fundamental rights, tasked with ensuring that legislative restrictions do not violate constitutional guarantees, and that judicial review remains a vital check on legislative and executive powers (!) .
The appeal was dismissed, confirming the invalidity of the law's provisions that failed to incorporate adequate procedural safeguards, and emphasizing the importance of judicial oversight in protecting constitutional rights (!) (!) .
Overall, the judgment underscores that restrictions on fundamental rights must be both reasonable and subject to judicial scrutiny, and that laws which deprive individuals or associations of rights without proper safeguards violate constitutional principles.
Judgment
PATANJALI SASTRI, C.J.I.- This is an appeal from an order of the High Court of Judicature at Madras adjudging S. 15 (2) (b) of the Indian Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908, (Act No. 14 of 1908) as amended by the Indian Criminal Law Amendment (Madras) Act, 1950, (hereinafter referred to as the impugned Act) as unconstitutional and void, and quashing Government Order No. 1517, Public (General) Department, dated 10th March 1950 whereby the State Government declared a Society called the People s Education Society an unlawful association.
2. The respondent, who was the general secretary of the Society, which was registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, applied to the High Court on 10th April 1950 under Art. 226 of the Constitution complaining that the impugned Act and the order dated 10th March 1950 purporting to be issued thereunder infringed the fundamental right conferred on him by Art. 19 (1) (c) of the Constitution to form associations or unions and seeking appropriate reliefs. The High Court, by a Full Bench of three Judges (Rajamannar C. J., Satyanarayana Rao and Viswanatha Sastri JJ.) allowed the application on 14th September 1950 and granted a certificate under Art. 132. The State of Madras has brought this appeal.
3. The Government Order referred to above runs as follows:
"Whereas in the opinion of the State Government, the Association known as the People s Education Society, Madras, has for its object interference with the administration of the law and the maintenance of law and order, and constitutes a danger to the public peace;
Now, therefore, His Excellency the Governor of Madras, in exercise of the powers conferred by S. 16 of the Indian Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908 (Central Act 14 of 1908) hereby declares the said association to be an unlawful association within the meaning of the said Act."
No copy of this order was served on the respondent or any other office-bearer of the society but it was notified in the official gazette as required by the impugned Act.
4. The declared objections of the Society as set out in the affidavit of the respondent are:
(a) to encourage, promote, diffuse and popularise useful knowledge in all sciences and more specially social science;
(b) to encourage, promote diffuse and popularise political education among people;
(c) to encourage, promote, and popularise the study and understanding of all social and political problems and bring about social and political reforms; and
(d) to promote, encourage and popularise art, literature and drama.
It was, however, stated in a counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the appellant by the Deputy Secretary to Government, Public Department, that, according to information received by the Government, the Society was actively helping the Communist Party in Madras which had been declared unlawful in August 1949 by utilising its funds through its Secretary for carrying on propaganda on behalf of the Party, and that the declared objects of the Society were intended to camouflage its real activities.
5. As the Madras Amendment Act (No. 11 of 1950) was passed on the 12h August 1950 during the pendency of the petition, which was taken up for hearing on the 21st August 1950, the issues involved had to be determined in the light of the original Act as amended. In order to appreciate the issues it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions. Before amendment by the Madras Act, the material provisions were as follows :
"15. In this Part:
(1) "association" means any combination or body of persons whether the same be known by any distinctive name or not; and
(2) "unlawfull association" means an association:
(a) which encourages or aids persons to commit acts of violence or intimidation or of which the members habitually commit such acts, or
(b) which has been declared to be unlawful by the Provincial Government under the powers hereby conferred.
16. If the Provincial Government is of opinion that any association interferes or has for its object interferen
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
