1. Challenge against High Court order refusing to withdraw a condition prohibiting the appellant from engaging in political activities or creating untoward public situations. (Para 3 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(SC) 453
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.
Siba Shankar Das @ Pintu – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha and Another – Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. of 2024 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) Nos. 2523-2527 of 2024)
Decided on : 22-03-2024
Advocates:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Suresh Chandra Tripathy, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Som Raj Choudhury, AOR Ms. Shrutee Aradhana, Adv.
Mr. Prashant Kumar, Adv.
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Suresh Chandra Tripathy, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Som Raj Choudhury, AOR Ms. Shrutee Aradhana, Adv.
Mr. Prashant Kumar, Adv.
Imposition of conditions breaching fundamental rights is impermissible.
Headnote:
Fundamental Rights - Imposition of Condition - Quashing of Condition
Fact of the Case:
The appellant challenged the order passed by the High Court rejecting the application for withdrawal of a condition that prohibited the appellant from creating untoward situations in public and being involved in any political activities.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the imposition of such condition would breach the fundamental rights of the appellant and therefore quashed and set aside the condition imposed by the High Court.
Issues: Imposition of condition breaching fundamental rights
Ratio Decidendi: Imposition of conditions that breach fundamental rights is impermissible.
Final Decision: The appeals were allowed, and the condition imposed by the High Court was quashed and set aside.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellant sought withdrawal of a condition restricting political activities and public conduct, which the High Court had previously rejected. (Para 3 )
3. Imposing conditions restricting political activities and public conduct breaches the fundamental rights of the individual. (Para 4 )
4. Conditions that breach fundamental rights, such as restrictions on political activities, cannot be legally imposed. (Para 4 )
5. Condition restricting political activities and public conduct quashed and set aside; appeals allowed. (Para 5 , 6 )
6. Can a court impose conditions restricting a person's involvement in political activities?
No, the court held that imposing conditions that prohibit an individual from engaging in political activities or creating untoward situations in public breaches their fundamental rights and cannot be legally imposed. (Para 4 )
7. What is the legal consequence of a court-imposed condition that violates fundamental rights?
A condition that breaches the fundamental rights of an individual is legally unsustainable and can be quashed and set aside by the court. (Para 4 , 5 )
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. Mr. Som Raj Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State seeks further time on the ground that the notice was delivered to him on 13th March, 2024 and he has also filed vakalatnama on 21st March, 2024. We, therefore, not inclined to grant him further time.
3. The appellant has challenged the order dated 18th January, 2024 passed by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, vide which the application filed by the present appellant for withdrawal of the condition in order dated 11th August, 2022 came to be rejected. The condition which is sought to be withdrawn is thus:
“(iv) The appellant shall not create any untoward situation in public and shall not be involved in any political activities, directly or indirectly.”
4. We find that the imposition of such condition would breach the fundamental rights of the appellant and no such conditions could have been imposed.
5. We, therefore, quash and set aside the condition imposed by the High Court, to the extent the same is extracted above.
6. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed.
7. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
