A restriction imposed by the Legislature in the interests of public order and the general public upon the freedom guaranteed to the citizen under Article 19(1)(b) and (d) is a reasonable restriction, and therefore does not contravene the provisions of the Constitution.

Headnote:
BOMBAY POLICE ACT - SECTION 37(3) - REASONABLE RESTRICTION - PUBLIC ORDER - VALIDITY - ORDER EXTENDING DURATION OF PROHIBITION - VALIDITY - BOMBAY GENERAL CLAUSES ACT, SECTION 21 - AMENDMENT OF ORDER.
Fact of the Case:

Petitioner challenged the validity of Section 37(3) of the Bombay Police Act, which empowers the Commissioner of Police to prohibit assemblies and processions for the preservation of public order, and an order issued by the Commissioner of Police extending the duration of a prohibition order for one month.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that Section 37(3) of the Bombay Police Act was a reasonable restriction on the freedom of assembly and procession guaranteed under Article 19(1)(b) and (d) of the Constitution, and that the order issued by the Commissioner of Police was valid as it was an amendment of the original order and the Commissioner had the authority to extend the duration of the prohibition.
Issues: 1. Whether Section 37(3) of the Bombay Police Act was a reasonable restriction on the freedom of assembly and procession guaranteed under Article 19(1)(b) and (d) of the Constitution. 2. Whether the order issued by the Commissioner of Police extending the duration of a prohibition order for one month was valid.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that Section 37(3) of the Bombay Police Act was a reasonable restriction on the freedom of assembly and procession guaranteed under Article 19(1)(b) and (d) of the Constitution because: a) The restriction was imposed in the interests of public order and the general public. b) The restriction was not absolute or unqualified, as the Commissioner of Police could only prohibit assemblies and processions that he considered necessary for the preservation of public order. c) The restriction was subject to judicial review, as the Court could determine whether the Commissioner of Police had acted reasonably in issuing the order. 2. The Court held that the order issued by the Commissioner of Police extending the duration of a prohibition order for one month was valid because: a) The Commissioner of Police had the authority to amend the original order under Section 21 of the Bombay General Clauses Act. b) The Commissioner of Police had satisfied himself that the preservation of public order required the extension of the original order.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petition and discharged the rule.

JUDGMENT

1. The petitioner has been charge-sheeted in the Court of the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate for having contravened an order passed by the Commissioner of Police under Section 37(3), Bombay Police Act, on 12-11-1955, and he has come before us under Article 228 of the Constitution contending that the case before the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate involves a substantial question as to the interpretation of the Constitution and therefore it should be transferred to this Court and this Court should decide that substantial question of law.

2. Section 37(3), Police Act, empowers the Commissioner of Police by an order in writing to prohibit any assembly or procession whenever and for so long as he considers such prohibition to Be necessary for the preservation of public order. There is a proviso to this sub-section to this effect:

"Provided that no such prohibition shall remain in force for more than fifteen days without the sanction of the State Government".

Acting under this sub-section the Commissioner of Police issued an order on 28-9-1955 and by that order he prohibited for a period of fifteen days any procession of five or more persons in Greater Bombay. He exempted from this order marriage processions, funeral processions and Ganpati processions, and he also directed that the order should be published by affixing copies of the same in conspicuous public places in Greater Bombay and by proclaiming the same with beat of drums in Greater Bombay.

On 12-10-1955 he extended the duration of this order for one month. On 12-11-1955 he extended it for a further period of one month, and the allegation against the petitioner is that it was this order that he contravened on 21-11-1955.

3. What is urged by Mr. Kotwal on behalf of the petitioner is that Section 37(3) of the Police Act is ultra vires of the. Constitution in that it infringes the petitioners fundamental rights secured to him by Article 19(1)(b) and (d). Article 19(1) provides that all citizens shall have the right among others, to assemble peaceably and without arms and to move freely throughout the territory of India. These rights are not absolute or unqualified rights. Sub-clause (3) of Article 19 provides:

"Nothing in Sub-clause (b) 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 public order, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause".

And Sub-clause (5) provides:

"Nothing In Sub-clauses (d), (e) and (f) 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, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of any of the rights conferred by the said sub-clauses either in the Interests of the general public or for the protection of the interests of any Scheduled Tribe.

Therefore, it is competent to the Legislature to circumscribe any of these freedoms in the interests of public order or in the interests of the general public, but in circumscribing these freedoms the legislature must not over-step the limit laid down by the Constitution, and the limitation laid down by the Constitution is that the restriction which can be imposed by the Legislature upon the freedom of the citizen guaranteed under Article 19(1) must be a reasonable restriction, and as has been pointed out, it is for the Court to decide whether a particular restriction imposed by the Legislature Is or is not a reasonable restriction.

Article 19 and the sub-clauses of that Article really attempt to provide a mean between the Interests of the State, the interests of law and order, the interests of security, and the rights of the citizens. It is not always easy to reconcile these conflicting claims. A citizen in a free country rightly asserts that he should be permitted to exercise his freedom.

But a free country equally requires law and order and security, and ther

Click Here to Read the rest of this document