1963 Supreme(MP) 124

High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
P. V. Dixit, C. J. and N. M. Golvalkar, J.
THAKUR BHARATSINGH - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH - Respondents
Letters Patent Appeal 25 Of 1963
Decided On : 12/04/1963

The Court held that the freedom of movement under Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution is not absolute and can be reasonably restricted in the interests of the general public and for the maintenance of public order. However, the restrictions imposed must be reasonable and proportionate to the object sought to be achieved.

Headnote:

PUBLIC SECURITY ACT - SECTION 3(1) - VALIDITY - REASONABLENESS OF RESTRICTIONS - FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT - ARTICLE 19(1)(D) OF THE CONSTITUTION - PROCEDURE FOR MAKING RESTRICTION ORDER - HEARING - EMERGENCY - ADVISORY COUNCIL - EXTENT OF JUDICIAL REVIEW.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant, Bharatsingh, challenged the validity of an order passed by the State Government under Section 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Public Security Act, 1959, prohibiting him from remaining in any place in Raipur district, directing him to reside within the municipal limits of Jhabua town, district Jhabua, Madhya Pradesh, and to proceed there immediately, and asking him to notify his movements and report himself personally every day at 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. to the Police Station Officer, Jhabua.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that Clause (a) of Section 3(1) of the Act was valid, but Clauses (b) and (c) were violative of Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution and were, therefore, void. The Court further held that the order made by the State Government on 24th April 1963 in so far as it directed the appellant Bharatsingh to reside in Jhabua and to proceed there immediately and to notify his movements and to report himself personally there at the Police Station was illegal. However, the order was upheld in so far as it prohibited the appellant from remaining in Raipur district.

Issues: 1. Whether Clause (a) of Section 3(1) of the Act was valid and reasonable restriction on the freedom of movement under Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution? 2. Whether Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 3(1) of the Act were violative of Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution? 3. Whether the procedure for making a restriction order under Section 3(1) was reasonable and complied with the principles of natural justice? 4. Whether the existence of an Advisory Council under the Act was a sufficient safeguard against arbitrary exercise of power by the State Government or the District Magistrate?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. Clause (a) of Section 3(1) of the Act was a reasonable restriction on the freedom of movement under Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution as it was in the interests of the general public and for the maintenance of public order. The restriction imposed by the clause had a reasonable relation to the object of the provision and was not arbitrary or excessive. 2. Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 3(1) of the Act were violative of Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution as they imposed unreasonable restrictions on the freedom of movement. The restrictions under those clauses had no reasonable relation to the object of Section 3(1) and were so drastic in scope that they went much in excess of the object stated in the provision. 3. The procedure for making a restriction order under Section 3(1) was reasonable and complied with the principles of natural justice. The Act contained provisions which showed that the restriction imposed by the making of an order under Clause (a) was not unreasonable. A person affected by the order was informed of the grounds of restriction order and he had a right to make a representation to the State against that order. A restriction order made under Section 3(1) had to be placed before the Advisory Council, which had the power to confirm, modify or cancel the order, and the opinion of the Advisory Council was binding on the Government. 4. The existence of an Advisory Council under the Act was a sufficient safeguard against arbitrary exercise of power by the State Government or the District Magistrate. The Advisory Council had the power to review the restriction orders and make recommendations to the Government. The opinion of the Advisory Council was binding on the Government.

Final Decision: The Court dismissed both the appeals filed by the appellant Bharatsingh and the State of Madhya Pradesh. The Court held that Clauses (a) and (c) of Section 3(1) of the Act were valid, but Clause (b) being violative of Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution was invalid. The Court further held that the direction made against the appellant Bharatsingh under Clause (b) asking him to reside in Jhabua was clearly illegal and was rightly quashed by the learned Single Judge. On quashing that direction, the further direction that Bharatsingh should notify his movements by reporting himself daily to the Police Station Officer, Jhabua, cannot survive.