Back
1950 Supreme(Pat) 121
PATNA HIGH COURT
S.K.Das and Sinha JJ.
Inderdeo Singh
Versus
State Of Bihar
Criminal Revision No. 488 of 1950 ;
Decided On : AUGUST 17, 1950
A ban on public processions imposed by a law for the purpose of securing the public safety and maintaining public order is a reasonable restriction on the right to assemble peaceably under Art. 19 (1) (b) of the Constitution of India.
Headnote:
PUBLIC PROCESSION - BANNING - LEGALITY - Bihar Maintenance of Public Order (No. 2) Ordinance, 1919, Sec. 6 - Bihar Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1949, Sec. 9 - Constitution of India, Art. 19 (1) (b), (3) - Whether the ban on public processions imposed by the Bihar Maintenance of Public Order (No. 2) Ordinance, 1919, and the Bihar Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1949, was a reasonable restriction on the right to assemble peaceably under Art. 19 (1) (b) of the Constitution of India.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were convicted of contravening an order passed under Sec. 6 of the Bihar Maintenance of Public Order (NO. 2) Ordinance, 1919, which prohibited public processions without permission from the District Magistrate or the Additional District Magistrate. The petitioners had taken out a procession to join a public meeting convened by the communist party, without obtaining the required permission.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the procession in question was a public procession within the meaning of Sec. 6 of the Ordinance, as it was open to the public or a class of the public, and was held for a public purpose. The court also found that the petitioners were holding the procession, as they were leading it and carrying communist flags. The court further held that the ban on public processions imposed by the Ordinance and the Act was a reasonable restriction on the right to assemble peaceably under Art. 19 (1) (b) of the Constitution of India, as it was necessary for securing the public safety and maintaining public order.
Issues: 1. Whether the procession in question was a public procession within the meaning of Sec. 6 of the Ordinance? 2. Whether the petitioners were holding the procession? 3. Whether the ban on public processions imposed by the Ordinance and the Act was a reasonable restriction on the right to assemble peaceably under Art. 19 (1) (b) of the Constitution of India?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the procession in question was a public procession within the meaning of Sec. 6 of the Ordinance, as it was open to the public or a class of the public, and was held for a public purpose. The court relied on the fact that the procession was going to a public meeting, that the purpose of the procession was a public purpose, and that there was no evidence that the procession had imposed any restriction on the joining of any outsider or sympathiser. 2. The court held that the petitioners were holding the procession, as they were leading it and carrying communist flags. The court relied on the fact that the petitioners were members of the communist party, that they led the procession, and that they were most vociferous in the slogans which the processionists shouted. 3. The court held that the ban on public processions imposed by the Ordinance and the Act was a reasonable restriction on the right to assemble peaceably under Art. 19 (1) (b) of the Constitution of India, as it was necessary for securing the public safety and maintaining public order. The court relied on the fact that the Ordinance and the Act were enacted for the purpose of securing the public safety and maintaining public order, and that the ban on public processions was a necessary measure for achieving these objectives.
Final Decision: The court rejected the petition, but reduced the sentence of the petitioners to the period already undergone.
Das, J.
1. The five petitioners have been convicted of contravening an order passed under Sec. 6, Bihar Maintenance of Public Order (NO. 2) Ordinance, 1919, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year each. Sec. 6 of the said Ordinance, so far as it is relevant for our purpose, reads thus:
"The Provincial Government may, for the purpose of securing the public safety OR the maintenance of public order, by general or special order, prohibit, restrict or impose conditions upon, the holding of or taking part in public processions, meetings or assemblies."
On 25-6-1949, the Provincial Government pass-ed the following order purporting to act under the provisions of Sec. 6:
"In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Sec. 6, Bihar Maintenance of Public Order (No. 2) Ordinance, 1949, and for the purpose of securing the public safety and the maintenance of public order, the Governor of Bihar is pleased to direct that no public meeting or procession shall be held without the permission of the District Magistrate or the Additional District. Magistrate of the district; Provided that this order shall not apply to marriage and funeral processions or to condolence meetings and public meetings held for purely literary purposes."
2. The allegation against the petitioners was that on 15-8-1949, a day set apart for the celebration of independence of this country, the petitioners along with other members of the communist party took out a procession in order to join a public meeting convened by the said party near a lower primary school of village Kazi Fatu Chak, for the purpose of proclaiming the creed of the party and condemning those in charge of the Government of the country. The Sub- Inspector of Police of Barbigha police station, received an information that such meeting was going to be held, and having received that information on 14-81949, he went to the place on 15th, saw the procession and disperse it before any meeting could be held. The five petitioners, it was alleged, headed the procession, carried communist flags and shouted slogans condemning capitalism and praying for the destruction of what had been termed as " Jawahar Raj " meaning probably the authority of the Prime Minister of India.
3. The Courts below found the petitioners guilty of contravening the order quoted above, inasmuch as no permission of the District Magistrate or the Additional District Magistrate was taken for holding the procession in question,
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has addressed us at great length on the legality or otherwise of the conviction. He has raised several points, and I propose to deal with them briefly in view of the order which we are passing in this case.
5. The first point urged before us is that there is no finding that the procession in question was a public procession. It is stated that in the charge or in the judgment of the trying Magistrate, there is no mention of the word " Public ". It is argued that though the learned Sessions Judge who heard the appeal of the petitioners, stated in the concluding part of his judgment that the procession was a public procession, he did not really apply his mind to the question, nor did he find the necessary facts which would lead to the inference that the procession was a public procession. It is to be observed that Sec. 6 (1) of the Ordinance, which I have already quoted, refers to public procession, meeting or assemblies. Sub-section (2) of the said section explains what is meant by a public procession. That subsection is in the following terms:
"For the purpose of Sub-section (1), any procession, meeting or assembly which is open to the public or to any class or portion of the public, whether held in a public or a private place and whether admission thereto is restricted by the issue of tickets or otherwise, shall be deemed to be a public procession, meeting or assembly, as the case may."
Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the real teat acc
