GURBACHAN SINGH versus THE STATE OF BOMBAY AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1952] 1 S.C.R. 737 · Decided: 07-05-1952 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. PATANJALI SASTRI, MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN, BIJAN KUMAR MUKHERJEA, SUDHI RANJAN DAS, N. CHANDRASEKHARA AIYAR · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

• 
... 
--
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
737 
direct that they be tried for the offences alleged 
to have been committed by them according to law 
and in 
the meantime they be retained in custody as 
undertrial prisoners. 
Appeals allowed. 
Agent for the appellants : Naunit Lal. 
Agent for the respondent: P. A. Mehta. 
Agent for the intervener : Rajindcr Narain . 
GURBACHAN SINGH 
ti. 
THE STATE OF BOMBAY AND ANOTHER 
[PATANJALI SASTRI C.J., MEHER CHAND MAHAJAN, 
MuKHERJEA, DAs and CHANDRASEKHARA A1YAR JI.] 
City of Bombay Police Act, 1902, s. 27 (!)-Constitution of 
India, Arts. 19 (1) (d), 19 (5)-Provisions relating to externment 
whether infringe fundamental right to freedom of movement-Valid-
ity-Externment 01·der fixing place outside State of Bombay for 
residence-Legality. 
Section 27 (I) of the City of Bombay Police Act: 1902, docs 
not contravene the provisions of Art. 19 of the Constitution 
inasmuch as it was enacted in the interest of the general public 
and, having regard to the class of cases to which this sub-section 
.applies and the menace which an extemment order passed under 
it is intended to avert, the restrictions that it imposes on the 
fundamental right of free movement of a citizen which is guaran-
teed by Art. 19 (!) (d) of the Constitution arc reasonable and 
come within the purview of Art. 19 (5). 
The determination of the question whether the restrictions 
imposed by a legislative enactment upon the fundamental rights 
of a citizen enumerated in Art. 19 (1) ( d) of the Constitution are 
reasonable or not within the meaning of clause (5) of the article 
:depends as much on the procedural part of the law as upon its 
substantial part, and the Court has got to look in each case to 
the circumstances under which and the manner in which the 
J'Cstrictions have been imposed. 
There are two kinds of externment orders contemplated by 
'&Uh-section (I) of s. 27 of the City of Bombay Police Act, 
1902; 
one, 
where 
the externmant is directed from 
Greater 
:Bombay, and the other where the extcrncc is to remove 
him.self 
1952 
M11y 7. 
738 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1952] 
1952 
from• the State of Bombay. 
In the first class of cases, the ex-
--
. 
terntnent order has to specify the place ,vhere the externee is to-
GurbachRR Singh re111ove himself and it muSt also indicate the route by which he 
v. 
has to reach that place. 
On the other hand, where the extern-
The State of 
inent is fron1 the State of Bombay, the externee can remain any-
Bombay 
where he likes outside the State and no place of residence can or 
•nd Another 
need be mentioned. 
\Vhere an externment order made under 
s. 
27(1) of the 
City of Bo1nbay Police Act direc-::Cd a person \Vho resided in the 
City of Bo1nbay to remove himself £1 Dm 
Greater Bombay and 
to go to his native place at Amritsar, and on his representation 
that he did not like to go to Amritsar and might be allowed 
to 
stay at Kalyan, v,.rhich 
was outside 
Greater 
Bombay, 
he was 
per1nitted to do so: Held, that in view of the 
subsequent re-
quest of the externee which was acceded to 
by 
the 
Commis~ 
sioner of Police, the externment order coul<l be construed as an 
order of externment fro1n Greater Bon1bay to Kalyan and it \vas. 
therefore a valid order of extern1nent. 
ORIGINAL JuR1so1cnoN : Petition No. 76 of 1952. 
Application un<ler Art. 32 of the Constitution 
of 
Indb for a writ in the nature of mandamus. 
H. f. U mrigar for the petitioner. 
G. N. Joshi for the respondent. 
1952. 
May 7. 
The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
MuKHERJEA J.-This is an application under arti-
cle 32 of the Constitution, presented by one Gurubachan 
Singh, praying for a writ, in the nature of mandamt<s 
restraining the respondents as 
well as 
their subordi-
nates an;l 
successors from 
enforcing an 
externment 
order served on the pd1tioner under section 27 (1) of 
the City of Bombay Police Act (1902). 
The petitioner is an Indian citizen and is said to be: 
residing with his father at a place called "Gogri Niwas'', 
Vincent Road, Dadar, his father having a business in 
electrical gocxls in the city of Bombay. 
On the 23rd 
July, 1951, the petitioner was serve<l with .a1~ order 
purporting to have been made by the Corrim1ss1on~r of 
Police, Bombay, under section 27 (1) of the City of 
Bombay Police Act, directing him to remove himself 
from 
Greater 
Bombay and go to his native place at 
\ 
,,._. 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
739 
Amritsar in East Punjab. It was
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.