1952 (3) TMI 34 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court: Unconstitutional Amendment Invalid, Emphasizes Reasonable Differentiation

STATE OF MADRAS Versus VG. ROW, UNION OF INDIA & STATE INTERVENERS OF TRAVANCORE

The Supreme Court held that Section 15(2)(b) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908, as amended, was unconstitutional and void. The restrictions imposed ... - Issues Involved:1. Constitutionality of Section 15(2)(b) of the Indian Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908, as amended by the Indian Criminal Law Amendment (Madras) Act, 1950.2. Reasonableness of restrictions imposed by the impugned Act under Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution.3. Adequacy of procedural safeguards provided by the impugned Act.4. Alleged violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.5. Validity of property forfeiture provisions under the impugned Act.Detailed Analysis:1. Constitutionality of Section 15(2)(b)The Supreme Court examined whether Section 15(2)(b) of the Indian Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908, as amended by the Indian Criminal Law Amendment (Madras) Act, 1950, was unconstitutional. The High Court had previously adjudged this section as unconstitutional and void, leading to the quashing of the Government Order that declared the People's Education Society an unlawful association. The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court's finding that the impugned section was unconstitutional.2. Reasonableness of RestrictionsThe Court considered whether the restrictions imposed by Section 15(2)(b) were 'reasonable' within the meaning of Article 19(4) of the Constitution. The Court noted that the restrictions were imposed 'in the interests of public order,' but questioned their reasonableness. The Court emphasized that both the substantive and procedural aspects of the restrictions must be reasonable. The Court found that the vesting of authority in the executive government to impose restrictions without allowing the grounds of such imposition to be tested in a judicial inquiry was a strong element against the reasonableness of the restrictions.3. Adequacy of Procedural SafeguardsThe Court highlighted several procedural inadequacies in the impugned Act:- Inadequate Publication: The notification was only published in the official Gazette, which might not reach the members of the declared unlawful association.- No Time Limit for Advisory Board: There was no time limit for the Government to send papers to the Advisory Board or for the Board to make its report.- No Right to Personal Appearance: The aggrieved person was denied the right to appear either in person or by pleader before the Advisory Board.These procedural deficiencies contributed to the Court's conclusion that the restrictions were not reasonable.4. Alleged Violation of Article 14One of the High Court judges held that the impugned Act violated Article 14 of the Constitution due to unreasonable differentiation between two classes of unlawful associations mentioned in Section 15(2)(a) and (b). However, the other judges did not agree with this view, and the Supreme Court did not base its decision on this ground.5. Validity of Property Forfeiture ProvisionsThe Court also considered the validity of the property forfeiture provisions under the impugned Act. One High Court judge opined that these provisions were void as they had no reasonable relation to the maintenance of public order. The Supreme Court noted that the absence of adequate communication of the Government's notification to the association and its members or office-bearers rendered the imposition of restrictions unreasonable.ConclusionThe Supreme Court concluded that Section 15(2)(b) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908, as amended by the Criminal Law Amendment (Madras) Act, 1950, fell outside the scope of authorized restrictions under Article 19(4) and was, therefore, unconstitutional and void. The appeal was dismissed with costs.