Judgment

HIDAYATULLAH, C.J.I. (for himself, and on behalf of SHELAT, MITTER, VAIDIALINGAM, RAY AND DUA JJ.): During the hearing of these petitions the constitutional validity of Section 144 and Chapter VIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure was challenged and this Special Bench was nominated to consider the issue. Lengthy arguments were addressed to us by the petitioner and several interveners. The matter, as we shall show later, lies in a narrow compass. At the end of the arguments we announced our conclusion that the said provisions of the Code, properly understood, were not in excess of the limits laid down in the Constitution, for restricting the freedoms guaranteed by Art. 19 (1) (a), (b), (c) and (d). We reserved our reasons and now we proceed to give them.

2. We are required to test the impugned provisions against the first four sub-clauses of the first clause of the nineteenth article. We may accordingly begin by reading the subclauses:

19. (1) All citizens shall have the right-

(a) to freedom of speech and expression;

(b) to assemble peaceably and without arms;

(c) to form associations or unions; and

(d) to move freely throughout the territory of India;

These sub-clauses deal with four distinct but loosely related topics. They preserve certain personal as well as group freedoms. They allow an individual freedom of speech and movement and as a member of a group (and for the group also) the same freedoms plus the right of assembly and formation of associations and unions. Although the guarantees appear to be in absolute terms, in reality they are not so. A number of restrictive exceptions are engrafted upon each of the freedom previously guaranteed. The restrictions are contained in cls. (2), (3), (4) and (5) and are related respectively to sub-cls (a), (b), (c) and (d) of the first clause. Clause (5) covers sub-cls. (e) and (f) of the first clause also, but the additional fact does not concern us. Of these, cl. (2), as it stands today, was not originally in the Constitution but was substituted with retrospective effect by S. 3 of the Constitution (First Amendment) Act 1951. Strictly speaking there never was any clause (2) other than the one we have before us today unless we were to hold that the first amendment was either not valid or not retrospective. We were invited to do so and to reconsider the decision in L. C. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab, (1967) 2 SCR 762 but we declined because its validity was not doubted at any stage in that case. The validity of the. Amendment therefore cannot now be questioned.

3. As a result we are not required to read the former cl. (2) which never existed. Clauses (2), (3) and (4) were further amended by the insertion of the words "The sovereignty and integrity of India" in each of them, by S. 2 of the Constitution (Sixteenth Amendment) Act 1963. The clauses as they exist today read:

"(2) Nothing in sub-clause (a) of clause (I) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State 2491 from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.

(3) Nothing in sub-clause (b) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it impose, or prevent the State from making any law imposing, in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India or public order, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause.

(4) Nothing in sub-clause (c) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes or prevent the State from making any law imposing, in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India or public order or morality, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the r