1. Challenge to the validity of the Central Provinces and Berar Goondas Act, 1946, following an externment order passed under Section 4-A. (Para 1 , 4 , 5 )
Back
Next 
1960 Supreme(SC) 234
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
3rd October, 1960
B.P. SINHA, C.J.I., J.L KAPUR, P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. SUBBA RAO AND K.N. WANCHOO, JJ.
State of M.P. and another, Appellants
Versus
Baldeo Prasad, Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 271 of 1956. 294
Advocates Appeared
Mr. M. Adhikari, Advocate-General, for State of Madhya Pradesh (M/s. B. K. B. Naidu and I. N. Shroff, Advocates, with him), for Appellants; Mr. R. Patnaik, Advocate, for Respondent.
Advocates:
B.K.B.Naidu, I.M.SHROFF, M.ADHIKARI, R.PATTANAIK
B.K.B.Naidu, I.M.SHROFF, M.ADHIKARI, R.PATTANAIK
A statute restricting fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(d) and (e) is invalid if it grants unfettered discretion to authorities by failing to provide a clear definition of the target class or a mandatory procedure to determine if a person belongs to that class.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 13, 19(1)(d), 19(1)(e), and 19(5) - Goondas Act - Sections 4 and 4-A - Validity of preventive action against persons categorized as goondas - Restrictions on movement and residence - Requirement of reasonable restrictions under Article 19(5) - Absence of a formal determination process to establish whether a person falls within the definition of a goonda - Vague and inclusive definition of "goonda" - Lack of safeguards against arbitrary exercise of power - Restrictions held to be unreasonable and ultra vires. (Paras 7-10)
(B) Fundamental Rights - Preventive Action - For a statute empowering authorities to take preventive action against citizens to be saved by Article 19(5), it must expressly require authorities to satisfy themselves regarding conditions precedent. Silence on a condition precedent constitutes a serious infirmity, leading to unguided and unfettered discretion. (Para 10)
Facts of the case:
A proclamation was issued specifying certain areas as proclaimed areas. An order was passed under the relevant Act directing a person to remove himself from a district on the grounds of being a goonda whose activities were prejudicial to public peace. The person challenged the validity of the Act, contending it violated fundamental rights to move freely and reside in any part of the country.
Findings of Court:
The operative sections of the Act are invalid because they fail to require a formal decision on whether the person is a goonda and provide an inadequate definition of the term, thereby allowing arbitrary exercise of power.
Issues: Whether the provisions of the Act allowing for the externment of a person categorized as a goonda impose reasonable restrictions in the interest of the general public under Article 19(5) of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that where a statute allows for the deprivation of fundamental rights, it must provide sufficient safeguards and clear guidelines. The failure to mandate a formal determination of the status of a "goonda" and the lack of a precise definition result in unfettered discretion, rendering the restrictions unreasonable and thus invalid under Article 19(5). (Paras 8, 9, 10)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the Act is ultra vires for violating fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(d) and (e), or if restrictions are reasonable under Article 19(5). (Para 1 , 6 )
3. The Act lacks a formal requirement for authorities to determine if a person is a goonda and provides an insufficiently clear definition of the term. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 )
4. Statutes restricting fundamental rights must provide clear definitions and express obligations for authorities to satisfy conditions precedent to prevent arbitrary or unfettered discretion. (Para 10 )
5. Appeal dismissed and High Court order upholding the invalidity of the Act confirmed. (Para 12 )
6. When are restrictions on the fundamental right to move and reside freely considered reasonable under Article 19(5)?
Restrictions are reasonable if the Act provides sufficient safeguards against casual, capricious, or malicious exercise of power, including clear definitions and a requirement for authorities to satisfy themselves regarding conditions precedent. (Para 9 , 10 )
7. Must a statute empowering preventive action expressly require authorities to satisfy themselves about conditions precedent?
Yes. Where a statute empowers authorities to take preventive action against citizens, it is essential that it expressly makes it a duty for authorities to satisfy themselves about the existence of conditions precedent to the exercise of such authority. (Para 10 )
8. What is the legal effect of a vague or inclusive definition in a statute that restricts fundamental rights?
A vague definition that provides no guidance or tests for the authority, combined with a lack of a formal decision-making process, results in unguided and unfettered discretion, rendering the restrictions unreasonable. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 )
Judgment
GAJENDRAGADKAR, J. : This appeal with a certificate issued by the Nagpur High Court under Art. 132 (1) of the Constitution raises a question about the validity of the CENTRAL PROVINCES AND BERAR GOONDAS ACT X of 1946 as amended by Madhya Pradesh Act XLIX of 1950. It appears that against the respondent Baldeo Prasad the State of Madhya Pradesh, appellant 1, passed an order on June 16, 1955, under S. 4-A of the Act. Subsequently the District Magistrate, Chhindwara, appellant 2, passed another order dated June 22, 1955, communicating to the respondent the first externment order passed against him. The respondent then filed a writ petition in the High Court (No. 249 of 1955) under Art. 226 challenging the validity of the said orders, inter alia on the ground that the Act under which the said orders were passed was itself ultra vires. The appellant disputed the respondent s contention about the vires of the Act. The High Court, however, has upheld the respondent s plea and has held that Ss. 4 and 4-A of the Act are invalid, and since the two sections contain the main operative provisions of the Act, according to the High Court, the whole Act became invalid. It is the correctness of this conclusion which is challenged before us by the appellants.
2. It would be convenient at this stage to refer briefly to the scheme of the Act and its relevant provisions. The Act was passed in 1946 and came into force on September 7, 1946. It was subsequently and the amended Act came into force on November 24, 1950. As the preamble shows the Act was passed because it was thought expedient to provide for the control of goondas and for their removal in certain circumstances from one place to another. Section 2 defines a goonda as meaning a hooligan, rough or a vagabond and as including a person who is dangerous to public peace or tranquility. It would thus be seen that the definition of the word "goonda" is an inclusive definition and it includes even person who may not be hooligans, roughs or vagabonds if they are otherwise dangerous to public peace or tranquility. Section 3 (1) empowers the State Government to issue a proclamation that disturbed conditions exist or are likely to arise in the areas specified in such proclamation if the State Government is satisfied that public peace or tranquility in any area is disturbed or is likely to be disturbed. The area in respect of which a proclamation is thus issued is described in the Act as the proclaimed area. Section 3(2) limits the operation of the proclamation to three months from its date and provides that it may be renewed by notification from time to time for a period of three months at a time. The first step to be taken in enforcing the operative provisions of the Act thus is that a proclamation has to be issued specifying the proclaimed areas, and the limitation on the power of the State Government to issue such a proclamation is that the proclamation can be issued only after it is satisfied as required by S. 3(1), and its life will not be longer than three months at a stretch. Sections 4 reads thus :
"4 (1). During the period the proclamation of emergency issued or renewed under S. 3 is in operation, the District Magistrate having jurisdiction in or in any part of the proclaimed area, if satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the presence, movements or acts of any goonda in the proclaimed area is prejudicial to the interests of the general public or that a reasonable suspicion exists that any goonda is committing or is likely to commit acts calculated to disturb the public peace or tranquility may make an order -
(i) directing such goonda to notify his residence and any change of or absence from such residence during the term specified and to report his movements in such manner and to such authority as may be specified;
(ii) directing that he shall not remain in the proclaimed area within his jurisdiction or any specified part thereof and shall not enter such area
