Judgement

SHAH, J. : On April 24, 1963, the State of Madhya Pradesh made an order in exercise of powers conferred by S. 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Public Security Act, 1959 - hereinafter called the Act - directing the respondent Thakur Bharat Singh-

"(i) that he shall not be in any place in the Raipur district;

(ii) that he shall reside in the municipal limits of Jhabua town, district Jhabua, Madhya Pradesh, and shall proceed there immediately on the receipt of this order; and

(iii) that he shall notify his movements and report himself personally every day at 8 a. m. and 8 p.m. to the Police Station Officer, Jhabua."

The respondent moved a petition in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging the order on the grounds, inter alia, that Ss. 3 and 6 and other provisions of the Act which authorised imposition of restrictions on movements and actions of persons were ultra vires in that they infringed the fundamental freedom guaranteed under Art. 19 (1) (d) and (e) of the Constitution of India and that the order was "discriminatory, illegal and violated principles of natural justice". Shivdayal, J., declared Cl. (i) of the order valid, and declared Cls. (ii) and (iii) invalid. In the view of the learned Judge the provisions of S. 3 (1) (a) of the Act were valid and, therefore, the directions contained in Cl. (i) of the order could lawfully be made by the State, but Cls. (b) and (c) of S. 3 (1) of the Act were invalid because they contravened the fundamental freedom of movement guaranteed under Art.19 of the Constitution, and, therefore, the directions contained in Cls. (ii) and (iii) of the order were invalid. Against the order passed by Shivdayal, J., two appeals were filed under the Letters Patent of the High Court. A Division Bench of the High Court held that Clauses (a) and (c) of Section 3 (1) of the Act were valid, but in their view Clause (b) of Section 3 (1) was not valid because it violated the fundamental guarantee under Art. 19 (1) (d) of the Constitution. The High Court, however, confirmed the order of Shivdayal, J., since in their view the direction contained in Cl. (iii) of the order was "inextricably woven" with the directions in Cl. (ii) and was on that account invalid. Against the order of the High Court, the State of Madhya Pradesh has appealed to this Court.

2. The relevant provisions of the Act may be briefly set out. Section 3 of the Act provides:

"(1) If the State Government or a District Magistrate is satisfied with respect to any person that he is acting or is likely to act in a manner prejudicial to the security of the State or to the maintenance of public order, and that, in order to prevent him from so acting it is necessary in the interests of the general public to make an order under this section, the State Government or the District Magistrate, as the case may be, may make an order-

(a) directing that, except in so far as he may be permitted by the provisions of the order, or by such authority or persons as may be specified therein, he shall not be in any such area or place in Madhya Pradesh as may be specified in the order;

(b) requiring him to reside or remain in such place or within such area in Madhya Pradesh as may be specified in the order and if he is not already there to proceed to the place or area within such time as may be specified in the order;

(c) requiring him to notify his movements or to report himself or both to notify his movements and report himself in such manner at such times and to such authority or person, as may be specified in the order;

(d) imposing upon him such restrictions as may be specified in the order, in respect of his association or communication with such persons as may be mentioned in the order;

(e) prohibiting or restricting the possession or use by him of any such article or articles as may be specified in the order.

(2) * * * *

(3) * * * *

4. If any person is found in any area or place in contravention of a restriction order or f