SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1926 Supreme(Mad) 667

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MARAS
Wallace
In Re: Gaddam Venkatasubba Reddi
Versus
Unknown
Decided On : 9 December, 1926

The duty of the executive to exhaust all available measures to uphold civil rights before resorting to Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Headnote:

Civil Rights - Duty of Executive to Uphold Civil Rights

Fact of the Case:

The District Magistrate failed to exhaust every measure at his disposal to uphold declared civil rights before resorting to Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the District Magistrate did not use all available measures to uphold the petitioners' civil rights and instead prematurely resorted to Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Issues: Failure of the District Magistrate to exhaust all available measures to uphold civil rights before resorting to Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Ratio Decidendi: The District Magistrate has a duty to exhaust every measure at his disposal to uphold declared civil rights before resorting to Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Final Decision: The petition is dismissed.

ORDER

Wallace, J.

1. It is the obvious duty of the executive to uphold the civil rights declared by its own Civil Courts. Any omission to do that is a confession of failure in duty. No doubt, the interests of the public peace are paramount, but, whereas in this case, the District Magistrate must be aware that there will probably be a disturbance of the petitioners civil rights at recurring seasons every year, it is his duty to exhaust every measure at his disposal to uphold declared civil rights before he abandons the attempt, and he should resort to Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure only when there is no time or opportunity for any other course. I am not satisfied in this case that all such other measures were used. The District Magistrate, for example, by taking thought in time--it is part of his duty to take thought in time--could have those who threaten to, interfere with the petitioners civil rights bound over to keep the peace, or might have got down sufficient force to meet the crisis, or could perhaps have arranged even at the petitioners cost for sufficient protection. It is not a proper course to do nothing to meet the crisis and then call in Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to tide him over it. The District Magistrate must in future consider in time whether other measures, less incompatible with petitioners civil rights are not available which will enable him to secure that petitioners civil rights are upheld without any real danger to the public peace, and, if they are available, adopt them in time.

2. With these remarks this petition is dismissed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top