1. Challenge to the constitutionality of Section 15(2)(b) of the Indian Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908 (Madras Amendment, 1950) regarding the declaration of associations as unlawful. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
1952 Supreme(SC) 27
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.Patanjali Sastri, CJI., B.K.Mukherjee, M.C.Mahajan, N.Chandrashekar Aiyar, S.R.Dass, JJ.
State Of Madras
Versus
V.G.Row: State Of Travancore-cochin
Case No. : 90 of 1951
Date of Decision : 3/31/52
Advocates Appeared: Iyer R.Ganapathi : Iyer T.N.Subramanian : Joshi G.N. : Mehta P.A. : Pillai M.R.Krishna : Raman C.R.Pattabhi : Setalvad M.C. : Subramaniam S.Siva : Swaminathan S.Govinda
Advocates:
C.R.Pattabhi raman, G.N.Joshi, M.C.SETALVAD, M.R.Krishna Pillai, P.A.Mehta, R.Ganapathy Iyer, S.GOVIND SWAMINATHAN, S.SIVA SUBRAMANIAM, T.N.SUBRAMANIA IYER
C.R.Pattabhi raman, G.N.Joshi, M.C.SETALVAD, M.R.Krishna Pillai, P.A.Mehta, R.Ganapathy Iyer, S.GOVIND SWAMINATHAN, S.SIVA SUBRAMANIAM, T.N.SUBRAMANIA IYER
Restrictions on the fundamental right to form associations are unreasonable if they vest the executive with power to declare associations unlawful based on subjective satisfaction without providing for a judicial inquiry into factual grounds and adequate notification to the affected parties.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 19(1)(c) and Article 19(4) - Indian Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908 - Section 15(2)(b) - Right to form associations - Reasonable restrictions - Whether the power of the State government to declare an association unlawful based on subjective satisfaction, subject to review by an Advisory Board, constitutes a reasonable restriction - The test of reasonableness involves examining both substantive and procedural aspects, including the duration, extent, and manner of imposition of restrictions (Para 15) - Vesting authority in the executive to curtail the right to form associations without allowing the factual and legal grounds to be tested in a judicial inquiry is unreasonable (Para 16) - A summary review by an Advisory Board cannot substitute for a judicial inquiry, especially when the grounds for the restriction are factual and not anticipatory or based on suspicion (Para 16, 17) - Absence of a mechanism for adequate communication or personal service of the notification to the affected association and its members, given the potential for penal consequences, renders the restriction unreasonable (Para 17).
(B) Judicial Review - Role of the court as a sentinel on the qui vive to determine the constitutionality of statutes infringing fundamental rights, while giving weight to legislative judgment (Para 13).
Facts of the case:
The State government declared a registered society an unlawful association on the grounds that it interfered with the administration of law and the maintenance of law and order. The respondent, an office-bearer of the society, challenged the declaration and the underlying statutory provision as infringing the fundamental right to form associations. During the proceedings, an amending Act was passed which required the government to specify grounds for the declaration and provide for a review by an Advisory Board.
Findings of Court:
Section 15(2)(b) of the amended Act is unconstitutional and void as it does not fall within the limits of authorized reasonable restrictions under Article 19(4) of the Constitution.
Issues: Whether the restrictions imposed by Section 15(2)(b) of the impugned Act, which allow the government to declare an association unlawful based on subjective satisfaction subject to an Advisory Board's review, are "reasonable" within the meaning of Article 19(4) of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the right to form associations is wide and varied; thus, allowing the executive to restrict this right without a judicial inquiry into the factual grounds is unreasonable. Unlike preventive detention or externment, which are precautionary and based on suspicion, the grounds for declaring an association unlawful are factual and amenable to objective judicial determination. Furthermore, the lack of a mechanism for personal service of the notification to the association's members, coupled with the risk of criminal prosecution for membership, makes the procedure unreasonable.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- constitutional law
- administrative law
- crime and sentencing
Table of Contents
2. Whether the subjective satisfaction of the government and the Advisory Board procedure constitute reasonable restrictions on the fundamental right to form associations under Article 19(1)(c). (Para 10 , 12 )
3. The court evaluated the procedural safeguards, the nature of the grounds for declaring associations unlawful, and the insufficiency of an Advisory Board as a substitute for judicial inquiry. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 )
4. Executive power to restrict the right of association based on subjective satisfaction without judicial inquiry into factual grounds is an unreasonable restriction under Article 19(4). (Para 16 , 17 )
5. Appeal dismissed; Section 15(2)(b) of the Indian Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908 (as amended) held unconstitutional and void. (Para 19 , 20 )
6. How is the test of reasonableness applied to restrictions on fundamental rights under Article 19?
Reasonableness is not an abstract standard but depends on the nature of the right, the purpose of the restriction, the urgency of the evil, and the proportionality of the imposition, examining both substantive and procedural aspects. (Para 15 )
7. Can a government's subjective satisfaction, reviewed by an Advisory Board, be a reasonable restriction on the right to form associations?
Generally, no. Vesting authority in the executive to restrict the right of association without allowing factual and legal grounds to be tested in a judicial inquiry is unreasonable, as an Advisory Board is not a substitute for judicial inquiry. (Para 16 )
8. Why are precautionary measures like externment treated differently from declarations of unlawful associations regarding reasonableness?
Precautionary measures are based on suspicion, are often temporary, and require prompt action. In contrast, declaring an association unlawful is based on factual grounds and is a permanent measure, necessitating objective judicial determination. (Para 17 )
9. Does the lack of personal service of a notification declaring an association unlawful affect the reasonableness of the restriction?
Yes. When membership in a declared unlawful association carries penal consequences, the failure to provide adequate communication of the notification to members renders the restriction unreasonable. (Para 17 , 18 )
M. Patanjali Sastri, C.J.I.
(1) THIS is an appeal from an order of the High court of Judicature at Madras adjudging section 15 (2)(b) of the Indian Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908 (Act No. 14 of 1908) as amended by the Indian Criminal Law Amendment (Madras) Act, 1950, (hereinafter referred to as the impugned Act) as unconstitutional and void, and quashing government Order No. 1517, Public (General) Department, dated 10/03/1950, whereby the State government declared a Society called the Peoples Education Society an unlawful association.
(2) THE respondent, who was the general secretary of the Society, which was registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, applied to the High court on 78 10/04/1950, under article 226 of the Constitution complaining that the impugned Act and the Order dated 10/03/1950, purporting to be issued there-under infringed the fundamental right conferred on him by article 19 (1) (c) of the Constitution to form associations or unions and seeking appropriate reliefs. The High court by a full bench of three Judges (Rajamannar C.J., Satyanarayana Rao and Viswanatha Sastri JJ.) allowed the application on 14/09/1950, and granted a certificate under article 132. The State of Madras has brought this appeal.
(3) THE government Order referred to above runs as follows:- `Whereas in the opinion of the State government, the Association known as the Peoples Education Society, Madras, has for its object interference with the administration of the law and the maintenance of law and order, and constitutes a danger to the public peace; Now, therefore, His Excellency the governor of Madras, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 16 of the Indian Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908 (Central Act 14 of 1908) hereby declares the said association to be an unlawful association within the meaning of the said Act. No copy of this order was served on the respondent or any other office-bearer of the society but it was notified in the official Gazette as required by the impugned Act.
(4) THE declared objects of the Society as set out in the affidavit of the respondent are: (a) to encourage, promote, diffuse and popularise useful knowledge in all sciences and more specially social science; (b) to encourage, promote, diffuse and popularise political education among people; (c) to encourage, promote and popularise the study and understanding of all social and political problems and bring about social and political reforms; and (d) to promote, encourage and popularise art, literature and drama. It was, however, stated in a counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the appellant by the Deputy secretary to government, Public Department, that, according to information received by the government, the Society was actively helping the Communist Party in Madras which had been declared unlawful in August 1949 by utilising its funds through its secretary for carrying on propaganda on behalf of the Party, and that the declared objects of the Society were intended to camouflage its real activities.
(5) AS the Madras Amendment Act (No. XI of 1950) was passed on the 12/08/1950, during the pendency of the petition, which was taken up for hearing on the 21/08/1950, the issues involved had to be determined in the light of the original Act as amended. In order to appreciate the issues it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions. Before amendment by the Madras Act, the material provisions were as follows:-`15. In this Part- (1) `association` means any combination or body of persons whether the same be known by any distinctive name or not; and (2) `unlawful association` means an association(a) which encourages or aids persons to commit acts of violence or intimidation or of which the members habitually commit such acts, or (b) which has been declared to be unlawful by the Provincial government under the powers hereby conferred. 16. If the Provincial government is of opinion that any association interferes or ha
