The U.P. Goondas Act, 1932, as modified and extended to the State of Delhi, was ultra vires of the Constitution, being in violation of the fundamental rights set out in Article 19(1) Clauses (d) and (e), and not being saved by Clause (5) of that same Article.

Headnote:
GOONDAS ACT - U.P. GOONDAS ACT, 1932 - SECTIONS 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, ARTICLES 19, 22 - VALIDITY OF THE ACT - REASONABLENESS OF RESTRICTIONS - RIGHT TO BE DEFENDED BY A LEGAL PRACTITIONER - SUMMARY OF THE ACT AND ITS PROVISIONS, COURT'S INTERPRETATION OF THE PROVISIONS, AND HOW THEY INFLUENCED THE COURT'S DECISION.
Fact of the Case:

Rawel Singh was arrested under the U.P. Goondas Act, 1932, as modified and extended to the State of Delhi. He was not produced before the Deputy Commissioner but before the Additional District Magistrate, who refused to grant bail. A bail application was presented to the Deputy Commissioner, but consideration was adjourned until after rules had issued. Rawel Singh was released on bail on 28th March 1952. The petitioner challenged the legality of the detention and all further proceedings under the Goondas Act, claiming that the Act was void for contravening Articles 19 and 22 of the Constitution.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the U.P. Goondas Act, 1932, as modified and extended to the State of Delhi, was ultra vires of the Constitution, being in violation of the fundamental rights set out in Article 19(1) Clauses (d) and (e), and not being saved by Clause (5) of that same Article.
Issues: 1. Whether the U.P. Goondas Act, 1932, as modified and extended to the State of Delhi, was ultra vires of the Constitution? 2. Whether the restrictions imposed by the Act were reasonable? 3. Whether the right to be defended by a legal practitioner of one's choice was infringed by the Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Act was an infringement of the rights to move freely throughout the territory of India and to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India, as ensured by Sub-clauses (d) and (e) of Clause (1) of Article 19 of the Constitution. 2. The court held that the restrictions imposed by the Act were not reasonable, considering both the substantive and procedural aspects of the Act. The court found that the proviso to Clause (2) of Section 5 of the Act, which provided that nothing in the section shall be deemed to entitle the person whose case is before the advising Judges to be represented before them by pleader, infringed the fundamental right given by Article 22(1) of the Constitution. The court also found that the procedure of Section 5, Goondas Act negated the right of a person arrested to be defended in the manner in which "being defended" is generally understood and was therefore unreasonable. 3. The court held that the right to be defended by a legal practitioner of one's choice was infringed by the Act, as the proviso to Clause (2) of Section 5 of the Act made such representation a matter of discretion with the advising Judges.
Final Decision: The court made the rule absolute in these matters and issued directions cancelling the bail bonds of Rawel Singh and directing that no further action be taken against him under the impugned Act.

Judgment

Weston, J.

1. These matters arise from action taken against one Rawel Singh son of Eakhshi Awtar Singh under the U. P. Goondas Act, 1932) as modified and extended to the State of Delhi by notification dated 10th No vember 1937 made under Section 7, Delhi Laws Act, 1912 . On 21st March 1952 Rawel Singh was arrested, in pursuance of a warrant issued by the Home Secretary to the Chief Commissioner under Section 4 of this Act to which I shall refer hereafter as the Act. Rawel Singh was not produced before the Deputy Commissioner but was produced before the Additional District Magistrate who refused to grant bail on the ground that he had no authority to do so. A bail application was presented to the Deputy Commissioner on the 22nd March 1952, consi deration of which, we are told, was adjourned, and only on 28th March after rules In the present matters had issued was he released on bail. It is claimed that the detention of Rawol Singh after his arrest was illegal and also that all further proceedings under the Goondas Act are also illegal as the Act is void, being in contravention of Articles 19 and 22 of the Constitution.

2. It is necessary at this stage to describe the material provisions of the Act. Section 2 contains a definition of goonda as including "a hooligan, bully, rogue or badmash". Section 3 provides for a report by the District Magistrate to the Chief Commissioner if the District Magistrate considers that a person or a body of persons should be dealt with under the provisions of the Act. Clause (1) of Section 4 provides that on receipt of such report the Chief Commissioner may make an order for the issue of a warrant for the arrest of the person against whom the report has been made. Clause (2) of the section provides that the warrant shall be in a form to be prescribed and shall contain a statement of the heads of the charges made against the person to be arrested, and the warrant shall also contain a requirement to the person arrested to make such submission as he may wish to the advising Judges appointed under Section 5, by such date as is stated in the warrant. Clause (3) - of Section 4 gives the Deputy Commissioner certain powers of a District Magistrate for enforcing the attendance of the person against whom the warrant is issued, and provides that the warrant issued under the section shall be deemed to be a warrant issued by the District Magistrate for the arrest of such person to answer a charge in respect of a bailable offence committed by him. Section 5 (1) provides that after issue oft the warrant the Chief Commissioner shall send the report of the District Magistrate with all material facts and circumstances in his possession relevant to the report to a body of two advising Judges, one of whom is to be the District and Sessions Judge of Delhi. Clause (2) of this section provides the procedure to be followed by this body of Judges and may be reported in full.

"(2) The advising Judges shall consider in camera the report and the other facts and circumstances, if any, adduced before them by the Chief Commissioner, and any representation submitted to them by the person against whom the report has been made within the time fixed by section 4 or such further time as they may allow, and shall call for such further information, if any, and may examine such witnesses, if any, as shall appear to them to be necessary to enable them to tender their advice on the report. They shall also give to the person against whom the report has been made; if he so desires, an opportunity of appearing in person before them to offer his explanation and, may, at the instance of that person, require the attendance of any other person whose statement may support that explanation. The Judges shall have discretion to record any evidence in the absence of the person against whom the report has been made and in this case the substance of such evidence shall be communicated to him before he is given an opportunity of offering his exp

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1952 Supreme(P&H) 8

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURTWeston and Kapur JJ.Inderjit SinghVersusState Of DelhiCriminal Writ Petition No. 21 of 1952,Decided On : APRIL 9, 1952

The U.P. Goondas Act, 1932, as modified and extended to the State of Delhi, was ultra vires of the Constitution, being in violation of the fundamental rights set out in Article 19(1) Clauses (d) and (e), and not being saved by Clause (5) of that same Article.

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Weston and Kapur JJ.
Inderjit Singh
Versus
State Of Delhi
Criminal Writ Petition No. 21 of 1952,
Decided On : APRIL 9, 1952