Unguided executive discretion in preventive detention law makes movement and residence restrictions unconstitutional

Preventive restrictions under the Central Provinces and Berar Goondas Act were found to be unreasonable because the statute left the essential determination of whether a person was a goonda to unguided executive discretion. The Act's object of preserving public peace did not cure the defect, since the District Magistrate was not required to apply defined statutory standards before making restrictive orders and the hearing provision did not provide adequate safeguards. Sections 4 and 4-A were therefore invalid under Art. 19(1)(d) and (e) and not saved by Art. 19(5), making the externment-based restriction unconstitutional.

---

---

Issues: Whether ss. 4 and 4-A of the Central Provinces and Berar Goondas Act X of 1946, as amended, imposed unreasonable restrictions on the rights guaranteed by Art. 19(1)(d) and (e) of the Constitution and were saved by Art. 19(5).

Analysis: The Act was designed to protect public peace and tranquillity by enabling preventive action against goondas in proclaimed areas. However, the operative provisions authorised restrictive orders without requiring the District Magistrate to first decide, on defined standards, whether the person proceeded against was in fact a goonda. The definition of goonda was inclusive and supplied no clear test to guide that determination. The scheme therefore left the essential classification to executive discretion without adequate statutory guidance, and the opportunity of hearing did not cure that defect. The resulting power was held to be vulnerable to casual, capricious, or malicious exercise and therefore could not be justified as a reasonable restriction.

Conclusion: Sections 4 and 4-A were invalid and not protected by Art. 19(5); the restriction on movement and residence was unreasonable.

Final Conclusion: Since the operative provisions of the Act were unconstitutional, the entire enactment failed and the challenge to the externment order succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: A preventive restriction on fundamental rights is unconstitutional when the statute authorises restrictive action without clear statutory guidance for determining the essential condition precedent and thereby confers unguided discretion on the executive.

---