SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1969 Supreme(SC) 481

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.C. SHAH, J.M. SHELAT, C.A. VAIDIALINGAM, K.S. HEGDE AND A.N. RAY, JJ.
The State of Bihar Appellant
Versus
K. K. Misra and others, Respondents. The State of Maharashtra and The Attorney- General for India, Interveners.
Civil Appeal No. 21 of 1966 D/- 29-10-1969.
Advocates appeared
Mr. D. Goburdhun, Advocate for Appellant; Mr. M.K. Ramamurthi, Senior Advocate, amicus curiae for Respondents; Mr. B. Sen, Senior Advocate, (Mr.S.P. Nayar, Advocate with him), for Interevener No.1; Dr. L.M. Singhvi, Senior Advocate, (Mr. S.P. Nayar, Advocate, with him), for Intervener No.2

Advocates:
B.SEN, D.GOVERDHAN CHARY, L.M.SINGHVI, M.K.RAMAMURTHY, S.P.NAIR, S.P.NAYAR

Headnote:

Constitution of India,1950 - Article 19 (2) and (3) (1) (b) (c) and (d) a and 226 - Code of Criminal Procedure - Section 144 , 134 , 435 & 439 - Cases of nuisance - Preventing disorders, obstructions and annoyances - It provides that when a Magistrate competent in that behalf is of opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding under section, and immediate prevention or speedy remedy is desirable, Magistrate may make an order in writing against any person or public generally when frequenting or visiting a particular place, if he considers that his direction is likely to prevent or tends to prevent obstruction, annoyance or injury, or risk of obstruction, annoyance or injury, to any person lawfully employed, or danger to human life, health or safety, or a disturbance of public tranquillity, or a riot, or an affray - Whether second part of sub-s. (6) of Section 144, Criminal Procedure Code namely words "unless, in cases of danger to human life, health or safety, or a likelihood of a riot or an affray, the (State Government) by notification in Official Gazette, otherwise directs" are liable to be struck down as being violative of any of clauses in Art. 19 (1) of Constitution – Held, One of important tests to find out whether a restriction is reasonable is to see whether aggrieved party has a right of representation against restriction imposed or proposed to be imposed - No person can be deprived of his liberty without being afforded an opportunity to be heard in defence and that opportunity must be adequate, fair and reasonable - Further Courts have to see whether restriction is in excess of requirement or whether it is imposed in an arbitrary manner - adverting to the restriction impugned in this case, the power to impose same is conferred on executive Government and not to any judicial authority - There is no provision to make representation by aggrieved party against direction given by Government; no appeal or revision is provided against that direction and order made need not be of temporary nature - Hence, Court agree with High Court that impugned provision is violative of Article 19 (1) (b) (c) and (d) and is not saved by Article 19 (3) (4) or (5) - Appeal dismissed.

Judgment

SHAH, J.:- The High Court of Patna has declared the second part of sub-s (6) of Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ultra vires. Sub-Section (6) reads:

"No order under this section shall remain in force for more than two months from the making thereof; unless, in cases of danger to human life, health or safety, or a likelihood of a riot or an affray, the State Government by notification in the Official Gazette, otherwise directs."

In the view of the High Court, an order made by the State Government extending the duration of an order under Section 144 imposes an unreasonable restriction on the fundamental freedom of the citizens, because the order of the State Government is not subject to judicial scrutiny and the Code provides no machinery for applying for an order of rescission or alteration of the order.

2. Section 144 is enacted to provide for making temporary orders in urgent cases of nuisance or apprehended danger, where immediate prevention or speedy remedy is desirable. It provides that when a Magistrate competent in that behalf is of the opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding under the section, and immediate prevention or speedy remedy is desirable, the Magistrate may make an order in writing against any person or the public generally when frequenting or visiting a particular place, if he considers that his direction is likely to prevent or tends to prevent obstruction, annoyance or injury, or risk of obstruction, annoyance or injury, to any person lawfully employed, or danger to human life, health or safety, or a disturbance of the public tranquillity, or a riot, or an affray. The order must state the material facts of the case and it must be served in the manner provided by Section 134 and may direct a person to abstain from a certain act or to make certain order with certain property in his possession or under his management. In cases of emergency or in cases where the circumstances do not admit of service in due time of a notice upon the person against whom the order is directed, it may be passed ex parte. The order remains in force for not more than two months, unless the State Government, in cases of danger to human life, health or safety, or a likelihood of a riot or an affray otherwise directs. The order may be rescinded or altered by a Magistrate on his own motion or on the application of any person aggrieved, if the order is passed by himself or by any Magistrate subordinate to him or by his predecessor in office. In deciding the application made to him the Magistrate must give an opportunity of appearing before him either in person or by pleader and showing cause against the order, and if the Magistrate rejects the application wholly or in part, he shall record in writing his reasons for so doing.

3. This Court in Babulal Parate v. State of Maharashtra, (1961) 3 SCR 423, held that Section 144 is intended to secure the public weal by preventing disorders, obstructions and annoyances. The powers conferred by it are exercisable by a Magistrate who acts judicially and the restraints permitted by it are of a temporary nature and may be imposed only in an emergency. The Court further held that the restrictions which the section authorisies are not beyond the limit prescribed by cls. (2) and (3) of Article 19 of the Constitution, for the prevention of such activities as are contemplated by the section is in public interest and therefore no less in the interest of public order. The Court observed that the wide power under the section may be exercised only in an emergency and for preventing obstruction, annoyance, or injury, etc. as specified therein and those factors necessarily condition the exercise of the power and, therefore, the power is not unlimited or untrammelled, and that the section cannot be struck down simply on the ground that the Magistrate might possibly abuse his power. Challenge to the validity of Section 144 in its entirety was negatived in Babulal Parate s case, (196





































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top