Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.P. SEN AND B.C. RAY, JJ.
Ishtiaq Hussain Farooqui, Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others, Respondents.
Writ Petn. (Civil) No. 11067 of 1984,
D/- 29-9-1986.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 144 – Constitution of India – Article 25 and 26, 32 – Maintenance of law - Possible breach of peace - Court fail to appreciate occasion for filing such a petition – Maintenance of law and order is a function of the District Magistrate and court have every reason to believe that the District Magistrate of Lucknow with a view to avoid any possible breach of peace would take the necessary steps well in advance for the purpose of maintaining public order which would be in the larger interests of the society – exercise of fundamental rights under Arts. 25 and 26 of the Constitution is not an absolute right but must yield or give way to maintenance of public order as laid down by this Court in principles are well settled and it is but for the District Magistrate to exercise his powers in, consonance with the provisions of S. 144 of the Criminal P.C. 1973 – Petition under Art: 32 of the Constitution appears to be wholly misconceived – Petitioner shall be at liberty to move the District Magistrate, Lucknow to take appropriate measures well in advance that there are no such incidents – Petition is accordingly dismissed.
Judgment
ORDER :- We fail to appreciate the occasion for filing such a petition. The maintenance of law and order is a function of the District Magistrate and we have every reason to believe that the District Magistrate of Lucknow with a view to avoid any possible breach of peace would take the necessary steps well in advance for the purpose of maintaining public order which would be in the larger interests of the society. The exercise of fundamental rights under Arts. 25 and 26 of the Constitution is not an absolute right but must yield or give way to maintenance of public order as laid down by this Court in Gulam Abbas v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1982) 1 SCR 1077. The principles are well settled and it is but for the District Magistrate to exercise his powers in, consonance with the provisions of S. 144 of the Criminal P.C. 1973. This petition under Art: 32 of the Constitution appears to be wholly misconceived.
2. The petition is accordingly dismissed. The petitioner shall be at liberty to move the District Magistrate, Lucknow to take appropriate measures well in advance that there are no such incidents.
Petition dismissed.
For Citation : AIR 1988 SC 93
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
