STATE OF MADRAS versus V. G. ROW

Citation: [1952] 1 S.C.R. 597 · Decided: 31-03-1952 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. PATANJALI SASTRI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

> • 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
597 
For the reasons given above, the appeal is allowed 
and the order of the High Court set aside. Each party 
will bear their own costs of these proceedings through-
out. 
Appeal allowed. 
Agent for the appellant : S. Subrahmanyam. 
Agent for respondent No. 1 : M. S. K. Sastri. 
Agent for respondent No. 4 : P. A. Mehta. 
STATE OF MADRAS 
v. 
V. G. ROW 
UNION OF INDIA & STATE I 
OF TRA VAN CORE-COCHIN. J lnterveners 
[PATANJALI SASTRI c. J., MEHER CHAND MAHAJAN, 
-
MuKHERJEA, DAs and CHANDRASEKHARA 
AlYAR JJ.) 
Indian Criminal Law Amendment Act (XIV of 1908) as amended 
·by Indian Criminal Law Amendment (Madras) Act, 1950, ss. 15 (2) 
(b), 16-Law empowering State to declare associations illegal by noti-
fication-No provision for judicial inquiry or for service of notifica-
tion on association or office-bearers-Validity of law-Unreasonable 
restriction on 
right to 
form 
associations-Constitution of India, 
art. 19 (1) (c), (4). 
Section 15 (2) (b) of the Indian Criminal Law Amendment 
Act, 1908, .is amended by the Indian Criminal Law Amendment 
(Madras) Act, 1950, included within the definition of an "unlaw-
ful association"· an association "which has been 
declared 
by 
the 
State by notification in the Official Gazette to be unlawful on the 
ground 
(to 
be 
specified 
in 
the 
notification) 
that such 
association 
( i) constitutes 
a danger 
to 
the 
public 
peace, 
or (ii) has 
interfered or interferes with the maintenance of 
public order or has such interference for its object, 
or 
(iii) 
has 
interfered 
or 
interferes 
with 
the 
administration 
of 
the 
law, 
or 
has 
such 
interference for 
its 
object." 
Section 
16 of the Act as amended provided that a notification 
under 
s. 15 (2) (b) shall (i) specify the ground on which it is issued and 
such other particulars, if any, as may have ~ bearing on 
the 
2-7 S. C. India/71 
1952 
Veci:appa Pillai. 
v. 
Raman & Raman 
Ltd. & Otlzerr. 
Chandrasek ham 
Aiyar /. 
1952 
March 31 
1952 
S111te of Madras 
v • 
• V. G. Row. 
598 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1952] 
necessity therefor and (ii) fix a reasonable period .for any office. 
bearer or member of the association or any other person interested 
to make a representation to the State Government in respect 
of 
the issue of the notification. Under s. 16A the Government was 
required after the expiry of the time fixed in the notification for 
making representation to place the matter before an Advisory 
Board and to cancel the notification if the Board finds that there 
was no sufficient cause for the issue of such noti6.cation. 
There 
was however no provision for adequate communicatiori 
of the 
notification to the association and its members or office bearers. 
It was conceded that the test under s. 15(2)(b) as amended was, as 
it was under s. 16 as it stood before the amendment, a subjective 
one and the factual existence or otherwise of the grounds was 
not 
a justiciable issue and the question was whether s. 
15(2)(b) 
was unconstitutional and void : 
Held, (for reasons stated below) that s. 15(2)(b) 
in;p~sed 
restrictions 
on 
the 
fundamental 
right 
to 
form 
assoc1at.J.ons 
guaranteed by art. 19 (I) ( c ), which were not reasonable within 
the meaning of art. 19( 4) and was therefore unconstitutional and 
void. The fundamental 
right to form associations or unions 
guaranteed by art. 19 (!) ( c) of the Constitution has such a wide 
and varied scope for its exercise, and its curtailment is fraught 
with such 
potential reactions 
in the religious, political 
and 
economic fields, that. the vesting of the authority in 
the 
execu-
tive Government to impose restrictions on such right, without 
allowing the grounds of such imposition, both in their factual 
and legal aspects to be duly tested in a judicial inquiry, is a 
strong element which should be taken into account in judging 
the 
reasonableness of restrictions imposed on the 
fundamental 
right under art. 19(l)(c). The absence of a provision for adequate 
communication of the Government's notification under s. 15(2)(b) 
by personal service or service by affixture to the 
association 
and 
· its members and office-bearers was also a serious defect. 
The formula of subjective satisfaction of the Government or 
of its officers with an advisory Board to review the materials on 
which the Government seeks to override a basic freedom gu·~.ran­
teed to the citizen, may be viewed as reasonable 
only in very 
exceptional c

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