HIMAT LAL K. SHAH versus COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, AHMEDABAD & ANR.

Citation: [1973] 2 S.C.R. 266 · Decided: 15-09-1972 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.M. SIKRI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

266 
HIMAT LAL K. SHAH 
A 
v. 
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, AHMEDABAD & ANR. 
September 15, 1972 
[S; M. SIKJU, C.J., A. N. RAY, P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, K. K. 
MATHEW AND M. H. BEG, JJ.] 
B 
Co11stit11tio11 of India. 1950, Art.I'. 19(1) (a), (b) and (d)-Right 
af citizens to hole/ puhlic nieetings on public ,<;lre~t.r-lf fundanzental right· 
Bombay Police Act. 1951, s. 33(1) (OJ and r. 7 of R11/es framed there• 
under-Rule requi'ring prior pennission for holding meetings-Rules if 
ultra vires section-Rule, if violates fundanzental rights. 
' 
. 
Th~ appellant, whose application for permission to hold a public meet· 
ing en a public street was rejected. contended in a writ petition in the 
C , 
High Court, (I) that the rules framed. by the first respondent under 
s.33(1) (0) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, were ultra vires the section 
·in that the sub-section does not authorise framing of rules requiring prior 
permission for ho.lding meetings; and (2) that the sub-section and the 
rules were violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Art. )9(1) 
(a) and (b) of the Constitution. The High Court .dismissed the petition. 
Jn appeal to this Court, 
D 
HELD : (per Curit1111) : Rule 7 of the rules is void. 
[283F; 293E; 
2990] 
(Per S. M. Sikri, CJ., A .• N. Ray and P. Jaganmohan Reddy,.JJ) : 
C !) The impugned rules are not ultra vires s. 33 (I) in so far as they 
require prior permission for holding meetings. r2SOB-CJ 
Sub-section 33(1) (0) proceeds on the basis th,.t the public has a right. E 
to he.Id assemblies and tukc processions on and along streets though It is 
necessary to re11u/ute the conduct and behaviour or action of persons 
con•tituting such assemblies or processions in order to safeguard the rights 
of citizens and in order to preserve public order. The word 'regulate' 
v.ou!O include the power to prescribe that permission in writing should 
be taken a few days before the holding of a meeting on a public street. 
The impugned rules do not prohibit the holding of meetings but only 
prescrihe that permission should be taken. [275B-E) 
(2)(a) Section 33(1) (0) does not viola.le Art. 19(1) (b), and Art. 
19 ( l) (a) is noJ attracted to the facts of the case. The sub-section has 
nothing to do with the formation of assemf,Jies and prOCOSllions but only 
Ueal'i \\·ith persons as members o'f assemblies and processions. The sub~ 
1:iection enables the Con1n1issioner to n1ake rules to regulate .. the assemblies 
and processions. 
Without such rules, in crowded public streets, it would 
he iplpossible for citizens to enjoy their various rights. 
Indeed, the sec-
tion '/1'°Y be said to have been enacted in aid of the rights under Art. 19 
(!) ia) and 19(1) (d). f281B-D) 
F 
G 
( h) h could not he contended hy the respondent that as under the 
Common I.aw of England no one has a right to hold a meeting on a 
highv.ay. and the sacne law prevails in Jndia. 
and therefore, 
the word 
'rcl"ulate' means a right to prohibit the holding of a meeting also:· In 
India, the law has developed on slightly different lines, and a citizen in 
ff 
India ·had. before the Constitution .. 1a right to hold meetings on public 
<trier< <Ubjcct to the control of the appropriate authority regarding .the 
'time ~ind phtce of the meetings and suhject to considerations of public 
.. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
I 
F 
G 
H 
H. L. SHAH v. COMM&. OF POLICE 
267 
order. 
While prior to the coming ii::tto force of the Constitution, 
th~ 
right to assemble eould have been abridged or taken away by law, after 
the com:ng into force of the Constitution, the right earinot be abridged 
oxcept by imposing reasonable restrictions. There is nothing wrong . in 
requiring prior permission to be obtained before holding a public meet-
ing on ii public street, for the right which ftows from Art. 19( I) (b) i• 
not a right to hold a meeting at -any place and time. 
But, the State can 
only make regulations in aid elf the right of assembly of each citizen and 
can only impose reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order. In 
the present case, however, r. 7 docs not g;ve any guidance to the officer 
authorised by the Commissioner of Police as to the circumstances 
in 
which be can refuse permission to hold a public meeting. The officer 
cannot be expected to read .the marginal note to s. 33 or to look at the 
;cheme of the Act to spell out the limitations on h:s discretion. Thorc· 
fore. the rule. which. confers arbitrary powers on the authorised officer 
must be str

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.