H4RI KHEMU GAWALI versus THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, BOMBAY AND ANOTHER.

Citation: [1956] 1 S.C.R. 506 · Decided: 08-05-1956 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUDHI RANJAN DAS · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

1956 
506 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
H4RI KHEMU GAWALI 
v. 
(1956] 
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, 
BOMBAY AND ANOTHER. 
[S. R. DAS C.J., JAGANNADHADAS, VENKATARAMA 
-~ 
AYYAR, B. P. SINHA and JAFER IMAM JJ.] 
Bombay Police Act, 1961 (Bombay Act XXII of 1961), s. 67-
Constitutional validity-Restrictions on individual right to reside in 
and move freely in any part of India-Reasonableness-Order of 
externment-Grounds of the order-Validity-Sufficiency of · evi· 
dence on which the order i• made-Whether can be examined by th• 
Court-Constitution of India, Art. 19(1)( d), (e) and ( 6). 
Section 57 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 provides that if a 
person has been convicted of certain offences detailed therein, "the 
Commissioner, the District Magistrate or the Sub·Pivisional 
Magistrate specially empowered by the State Government in this be· 
half, if he has re.ason to believe that such person is likely again to 
engage himself in the commission of an offence similar to that for 
which he was convicted, may direct such person to remove himself 
outside the area within the local limits of his jurisdiction, by such 
route and within such time as the said officer may prescribe and not 
to enter or return to the area from which he was directed to remove 
himself". 
Under tb.e provis.ions of the said section an order. of externment 
was passed against the petitioner who challenged the order on the 
grounds thats. 57 contravened clauses (d) and (e) of Article 19(1) of 
the Constitution, that the provisions of the said section imposed un · 
rea.sona.ble restrictions on the petitiOner's fundamental rights of free 
movement and residence and that the order pa88ed against him was 
illej;al inasmuch as it was based on vague allegations and inad· 
mlssible material. 
Held, per S. R. DAS C.J., VENKATABAMA AYYAR, B. P. SINHA 
.and JAFEB IMAM JJ. (JAGANNADHADAS J. dissenting) 
(1) Section 57 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 is not uncon· 
stitutional, because, it is an instance of the State ta.king preventive 
measures in the interests of the public and for safeguarding· indivi-
dual rights, by preventing a person who has been proved to be a 
criminal from acting in a way which me.y be a repetition of his 
criminal propensities, and the restrictions that it imposes on the. 
individual's right to reside iil and move freely in any part of India 
are reasonable within the meaning of clause (5) of Art. 19 of the 
Constitution. 
(2) The restrictions cannot be said to be unreasonable on the 
ground that the person dealt with under s. 57 of the Act may be 
-
... 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
507 
directed to remove himself altogether outside the limits of the 
State of Bombay as the Act extends to the whole of the State, 
because, unless the. person makes himself so obnoxious as to render 
his presence in every part of the State a menace to public peace 
and safety, every District authority would not think of acting in 
the same way in respect of the same person. 
(3) It cannot be laid down as a universal rule that unless 
there is a provision for an Advisory Board which could scnrtinise 
the material on which the officers or authority contemplated by 
s. 57 had taken action against a person, such a legislation would 
be unconstitutional. 
(4) The provisions in ss. 55, 56, 57 and 59 of the Act are 
not invalid on the ground that only the general nature of the 
material allegations against the person externed are required to 
be disclosed and that it would be difficult for him to get the mat· 
ter judicially examined. The provisions are intended to be used 
in special cases requiring special treatment, that is, cases which 
cannot be dealt with under the preventive sections of the Code 
of Criminal Procedure. 
(5) The legality of the order of externment cannot be im· 
pugned on the ground that there was not sufficient evidence to 
bring the charge home to the petitioner, because these are all 
matters which cannot be examined by this Court in an objective 
way, when the legislature ha.s provided for the subjective sa.tis· 
faction of the authorities or officers who have been entrusted with 
the duty of enforcing the special provisions of the Act. 
<Jurbachan Singh v. The Stats of Bomba11 ([1952) S.C.R. 787), 
followed. 
Pl!1' JAGANNADHADAS J:-Secti-0n 57 of the Act is constitu· 
tionally invalid because: 
(1) Clause (a) of s. 57 of the Act not being confined to offences 
serious in their n\i.ture or with reference to the attendant circum· 
st
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.