RAM SINGH versus THE STATE OF DELHI AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1951] 1 S.C.R. 451 · Decided: 06-04-1951 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HARILAL JEKISUNDAS KANIA · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
.RAM SINGH 
"· 
THE STATE Of DELHI AND ANOTHER 
BALRAJ KHANNA 
t'. 
THE ST ATE OF DELHI AND ANOTHER 
RAM NATH KALIA. 
• t'. 
THE ST ATE OF DELHI AND ANOTHER 
[SHRI HARILAL KANIA c. J., PATANJALI SASTRI, 
MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN, S. R. DAs and VIVIAN 
BosE JJ.J 
451 
Constitution of lnaia, Arts. 19(1) & (2), 22 (5)-Freedom of 
speech-Preventive detention to prevent speeches with a view to main-
tain public ordei-Omission 
to 
state objectionable passages 
ill 
grounds supplied-Legality of detention. 
The District Magistrate of Delhi, "being satisfied that with 
a view to the maintenance of public order in Delhi it is necessary 
to do so" ordered the detention of the petitioners under s. 3 of 
the Preventive Detention Act, 1950. 
The grounds of detention 
communicated 
to 
the 
petitioners were 
"that 
your · speeches 
generally in 
the past 
and particularly on the 13th 
and 15th 
August, 1950, at public meetings in 
Delhi has been such as to 
excite disaffection between Hindus and Mussalmans and thereby 
prejudice the maintenance of public order in Delhi and that in 
order to prevent you from 
making 
sucft speeches it is necessary 
to make the 
said order." 
The petitioners contended that under 
the Constitution the maintenance of public order was not a pur-
pose for 
which 
restriction 
can be imposed on the freedom of 
1951 
Jfpil, 6. 
1951 
11 ... s • .,. 
""' 011wr, 
... 
TIN Stalt ef 
D1lhi and 
Another. 
452 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1951] 
speech guaranieed by Art. 19 (1) and that the grounds commuI;i. 
cated were too vague and 
inde6nitc to enable them Io make a 
representation and the provisions of Art. 22 (5) of the Constiiu-
tion were not complied with, and their detention was therefore 
ultra virtt and illegal : 
Held by the Full Court (KANIA C. J., PATANJ.UI SASTRI, Mm• 
CHAND MAHAJAN, S. R. D.u am! 
VIVIAN 
Bos. JI.) 
th.at 
though 
personal 
liberty 
is suffi.cicnrly 
comprehensive 
to include 
the 
freedoms enumerated in Art. 19 (1) and its deprivation would 
result in the extinction of rho~ -freedoms, the 
Constitution has 
treated these civil 
liberties 
as 
disinct 
fundamental 
rights 
an<l 
made separate provisions in Arts. 19, 21 and 22 as to Ihe 1imit:>-
tioos and conditions subject to which alone they could be taken 
a\vay or abridged. Consequently, c\'Cn 
though a law 
which 
restricts freedom of speech 
::ind cxprc~sion \vhich 
i.s not 
<lirected 
solely ag:iinst the undermining of the .o;ecurity of the State or its 
ovcrthro\\· but is concerned 
gcncr~lly in the interests of public 
order 111ay not fall within the reservation of cl. (2) of Art. 19 and 
may therefore 
be void, :in orJcr of 
preventive detention cannot 
be held to be invali<l merely bc,ause the detention is n1ade with 
a 
view to prevent 
the making of spe<:ches 
prejudicial to the 
maintenance of public order. 
The decisions in Rrij Bl1ushan and 
Anotller v. Tiie Stale of De/Iii ( 1 ) and Romesh Thapparv. TheS111te 
Madra1(1) arc not inconsistent with. the decision in A .. 
1'.. Gopalan 
v. Tiie S1111e(1 ). 
. 
Held per 
KANIA C. J., 
PATANjAl.I SAsTRI and S. R. DAS JJ. 
(Mum CHAND 
MAHAJAN and BosE JJ. dissenting)-As the time 
and place at which the speeches \Vere alleged to haye heen made 
and their general nature and effect, namely, that they were such 
as to excite disaffection between Hindus and Muslims were also 
stated in the grounds communicated, they were not too vague or 
indefinite to enable the petitioners to 1nake an effective represent-
ation 
and the 
detention 
cannot be held to be illegal 
on 
the 
ground that Art. 
22 ( 5) was 
not complied 
with. 
Per MEuR 
CHAND M.<HAJ AN and 
BoSE JI. 
(contra )-In the 
absence of any 
indication in the grounds as to the nature of the 
\.Vords used by 
the petitioners 
in their speeches, fron1 which an inference 
has 
been drawn against them, the petitioners would not be able fully 
to exercise their 
fundamental right 
of making a 
representation 
and as there were no such 
indic..1tions 
in the grounds supplied. 
JhcrC \Vas a non~compliancc with the provisions of 
cl. 
(5) of, 
Art. 22 and the detention was illegal. 
The State of Bombay v. Atma Ram Sridhar Vaidya(') applied. 
Oa1c1NAL 
JURISDICTION : 
Petitions 
Nos. 21, 22 and 
44 of 1951. 
(I) [I950] S.C.R. 6o5. 
(•) (1950] S.C.R. 594. 
(3) [ 1950] S.C.R. 88. 
(4) [1951] S.C.R. 167. 
S.c.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
453 
Applications 
under 
Art. 32 of the 
Constitution 
praying for the issue
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.