Prior permission for public meetings may regulate assembly rights, but unguided discretion makes the scheme unconstitutional.

Rule 7 was within the rule-making power under Section 33(1)(o) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, because regulation of assemblies on public streets may extend to the time, place and manner of holding meetings, including prior permission; the rule was not ultra vires on that ground. However, the permission scheme was unconstitutional because it conferred unguided and arbitrary discretion on the authorised officer, with no standards or requirement to give reasons, thereby enabling unequal treatment and infringing Articles 14 and 19(1)(b). Rule 7 was struck down, and the remaining rules could not survive independently for public meetings.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Rule 7, requiring prior written permission for holding a public meeting on a public street, was within the rule-making power conferred by Section 33(1)(o) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. (ii) Whether Rule 7 and the allied scheme conferred arbitrary and unguided discretion so as to violate Articles 14 and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether Rule 7, requiring prior written permission for holding a public meeting on a public street, was within the rule-making power conferred by Section 33(1)(o) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951.

Analysis: The expression "regulating the conduct of and behaviour or action of persons constituting assemblies" was construed to include regulation of the time, place, and manner of holding meetings on public streets, including a requirement of prior permission. The statutory context showed that public streets could be subject to regulatory control in aid of order and convenience, and the rule did not amount to an absolute prohibition on meetings.

Conclusion: Rule 7 was not ultra vires Section 33(1)(o) merely because it required prior permission for public meetings on public streets.

Issue (ii): Whether Rule 7 and the allied scheme conferred arbitrary and unguided discretion so as to violate Articles 14 and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: A system of regulation may validly control the exercise of assembly rights, but it must contain safeguards against arbitrary refusal or discriminatory treatment. Rule 7 gave the authorised officer no guiding standards for granting or refusing permission and did not require reasons, thereby leaving the power open to arbitrary and unequal exercise. Such unfettered discretion was held inconsistent with constitutional guarantees of equality and the right peaceably to assemble.

Conclusion: Rule 7 was invalid because it conferred arbitrary discretionary power and infringed Articles 14 and 19(1)(b).

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and Rule 7 was struck down as unconstitutional, while the remaining rules could not survive independently for public meetings.

Ratio Decidendi: A regulation of assembly on public streets is permissible only if it is confined to reasonable control of time, place, and manner and is structured by adequate standards; a permission regime that leaves refusal to unguided official discretion is unconstitutional.

---