LexSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR. versus THAKUR BHARAT SINGH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR. v. THAKUR BHARAT SINGH January 23, 1967 [K. SUBBA RAO, C. J., J, C. SHAH, J. M. SHEi.AT, V. 8HARGAVA AND G. K. MITreR, JJ.] Madhya Pradesh Public Security Act, 1959, s. 3(1) (b)-Authoruln11 making of an order requiring a ptrro11 to reside 111 specified plac~o provuion for malnt1nance or submtence-wlrether /mp<ntd IUIJ'tarOMbl• rutrict/Dn-Tllere/or~ whether violative of Art. 19. Constitution of India-Art. 358-Scoge of-ugi.slatwe or .txecuti., act/Dn In/ringing rl11hts of cltliens or 01her1 taken durin11 emef(l1ncy undtr A,... 3S2-Action without lawful authority-whether protected by Art. 358. On April 24, 1963, tho State Government made an order under •· 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Public Security Act, 1959, directing that tho res- pondent (i) shall not be in any place in Raipur District, (i1) shall imme- diately proceed to aad reside in a named town and (iii) shall report dally tn a police station in that town. The respondent challenaed 1he order by a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of 1he Constitution on tho ground inter u/ia, that s. 3 infringed the fundamental rishts guaranteed under Art. 19(t ), (d) and (e) of the Comtitution. A Single Judge of the High Court declared clauses (ii) and (iii) of the Order invalid on tlie view that clauses (b) and (c) of s. 3(1) on which they were based contravened Arr. 19. A Division Bench, in a5pea!, confirmed the order of the Single Judge holding that s. 3(1) (b was violative of Art. 19(1) (d) and that cl>US<S (ii) and (iii) of the impur,ned order, being ine~rricably woven, were both invalid. In appeal to this Court it was contended, i11ter a/i,1, on behalf of the appellant s·ate (i) that clause J(l)(b) did not impose an unreas.>n- able restriction; (ii) that so long as the state o: emergency declared on October 20, 1962, by tl>a President under Art. 352 was in force, the res- pondent could not move the High CoUrt by a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution on the plea that by the impugned order his fundamental right ~aranteed under Art. 19(l)(d) of the Constitution was infiingcJ; and (•ii) that even ifs. 3(l)(b) wu held to be void, Att. 358 protects legislative and e.ecutive action taken after the proclamation of emergency and therefore any executive action taken by an officer of the State coulJ not be challenged as infrin8ing Arr. 19. HELD : The Order ma~e h)'. the State in exerci"' of the authority con- ferred bys. 3(l)(b) W8' invalid; and for the aci. done to the prejudice of the respondent after the declaration of emergency under Art 3~2 no immunity from the process of the Court could be claimed uiider Art. 358 of the Constitution, since the order was not supported by any valid legislation. [462 CJ (i) ~.High Court was right in. ~oldin,1 that s. l(IJ(b) authorised the 1mpos111on of unreasonable restricttons 1n so far as it required any per5?n to. reside or remain in such place or within such area 15 may be specified m the order .. The Act does not give any opportunity to the person concerned of being heard before the place where he is ro remain A B c D F G H 8 c D E JI G H - M. P. STATE~·. BHARAT SINGH (Shah, J,) 455 ar reside 11 selected. lbe place selected may be one In which be may have no ruldenllal accommodation, and no means of subsisteni:e. S. 3 (I) (b) does not Indicate the extent of the place or lbe area, Its distance from the residence of the pmon extemed and whelher lt may be hnbltated or lnhabltated; and lt makes no provision for his residence, maintenance or means of livelihood in the place selected. [4S8B·E] (ii) The Act was brought inlo force before the declaration of emer· gency and it was therefore open to the respondent to invoke Art. 19. If the power conferred by s. 3 (I) (b) authorised the imposition of UD• reasonable restrictions, the clause must be deemed to be void. when enacted and it was not revived when the proclamation of emergency was made by the President. [459 B-C) (iii) All executive action which operates to the prejudice of any pen;on must have the authority of law to support it, and the terms of Art 358 do not detract from that rule. Article 358 expressly authorises the State to take legislative or executive action provided such action was competent for the State to make or take, but for the provisions contained in Part III of the Constitution. Article 3S8 does not purport to invest the State with arbitrary authority t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.