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

1956 Supreme(All) 25

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Desai and V. D. Bhargava, JJ.
RAJ NARAIN SINGH - Appellant
Versus
DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, GORAKHPUR - Respondents
Criminal Misc. Writ 962 Of 1955
Decided On : 01/24/1956

Advocates Appeared:
Gopi Krishna Sahai, K.L.MISHRA, MILON K.BANERJI, S.C.KHARE

Headnote:

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 144 - CONSTITUTIONALITY - RESTRICTIONS ON FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION - REASONABLENESS - SEVERABILITY OF PROVISIONS.

Fact of the Case:

Three individuals were arrested for disobeying an order issued by the City Magistrate under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) prohibiting demonstrations and gatherings in a specific area. The applicants challenged the order and the provisions of Section 144, arguing that they violated their fundamental rights under Article 19 of the Constitution.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the provisions of Section 144 were constitutional and that the restrictions imposed on the applicants' freedom of speech and expression were reasonable and in the interests of public order. The court found that the order issued by the Magistrate was valid as it was passed to prevent a disturbance of the public tranquillity, a purpose permitted under Article 19(2) of the Constitution.

Issues: 1. Whether the provisions of Section 144 of the CrPC are unconstitutional and violate the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution? 2. Whether the restrictions imposed by the order issued under Section 144 were reasonable and in the interests of public order?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the provisions of Section 144 are constitutional and do not violate the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution. The court reasoned that the restrictions imposed by Section 144 are reasonable and in the interests of public order, as they are necessary to prevent obstruction, annoyance, or injury to persons or property, or to prevent a disturbance of the public tranquillity, a riot, or an affray. 2. The court further held that the order issued by the Magistrate was valid as it was passed to prevent a disturbance of the public tranquillity, a purpose permitted under Article 19(2) of the Constitution. The court found that the Magistrate had considered the relevant facts and circumstances and had acted within his powers in issuing the order.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the application for a writ of habeas corpus and upheld the validity of the provisions of Section 144 of the CrPC and the order issued by the Magistrate.

DESAI, J.


( 1 ) THIS is an application for a writ of habeas corpus by three persons who are being prosecuted for the offence of Section 188, I. P. C. for disobedience of an order promulgated under Section 144, Criminal P. C. by the City Magistrate, Gorakhpur. At the time when the applicants presented the application in this Court they were detained in the District Jail, Gorakhpur; they have been released by this Court on bail during the pendency of this application. This Court has also stayed further proceedings in the case under Section 188, I. P. C. (2) Applicant 1 is a member of the U. P. Legislative Assembly and leader of the opposition party in the Assembly, applicant 2 is a Trade Unionist and member of the Praja Socialist Party and applicant 3 is a member of the Praja Socialist Party and Secretary of the District Kisan Panchayat, Gorakhpur. On 25-4-1952 the police fired upon a crowd of railway workers and killed two of them. Since then 2-3 persons have been going every year on April the 24th to the spot where the two workmen were killed to place wreaths. The district authorities have been every year passing orders under Section 144, Criminal P. C. prohibiting such an act and prosecuting persons who disobey the order.

( 2 ) ACCORDINGLY on 23-4-1955 the City Magistrate, Gorakhpur, promulgated an order under Section 144. In the preamble he referred to the information received by him to the effect that certain persons intended to make demonstrations in connection with the incident of 25-4-1952 on private land belonging to the Railway without the consent of the railway authorities and expressed his opinion that such demonstrations were

"likely to cause annoyance to the persons lawfully employed and to disturb the public peace and tranquility and speedy remedy is desirable".

In the operative portion he directed that no person shall organise any meetings, demonstrations or processions without previous permission that "no person shall deliver any speech or shout any slogan which incites or is likely to incite bad feeling among the public", that no person shall enter a certain piece of land, that no person shall carry any lathi and other weapon, that no person shall collect material, which can, be used for the purpose of attack, in any premises under his management or proprietorship, that no person shall print, distribute, exhibit etc. any leaflet, notice etc. which incites or is likely to incite bad feelings among the public and that no person shall use a microphone or loud speaker without previous permission. The order was expressed to remain in force for 7 days with effect from 24-4-1955 in specified area. It was passed ex parte. It warned the public that any breach of its provisions was punishable under Section 188, I. P. C. The three applicants proceeded to the spot on 25-4-1955 and were promptly arrested by the police for disobedience of the order.

( 3 ) THE applicants contend that they alone went to the spot, Chat they were shouting no slogans and were making no speeches, that they were arrested as soon as they entered the railway station premises, that the order issued under Section 144 was vague, went beyond the scope of Section 144 and contravened Article 11 (which seems to be a mistake for 19) of the Constitution, that there was no urgency justifying issue of the order and that Section 144 is ultra vires the constitution. In the counter-affidavit, filed by the station officer of police station, Cantonments, gorakhpur, it was stated that 100 persons including the applicants marched in a procession shouting inflammatory slogans and that they were arrested when they attempted to enter into the prohibited area.

( 4 ) SECTION 144 (1), Criminal P. C. is as follows:

"in cases where, in the opinion of a. . . . . . . . . Magistrate. . . . there is sufficient ground for proceeding under this section and immediate prevention or speedy remedy is desirable, such Magistrate may. . . . direct any person to abstain from , a certain act



















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