1967 (1) TMI 82 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court invalidates Madhya Pradesh Public Security Act provision, upholds fundamental freedoms

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR. Versus THAKUR BHARAT SINGH

The Supreme Court held that Section 3(1)(b) of the Madhya Pradesh Public Security Act, 1959, was invalid as it imposed unreasonable restrictions on ... - Issues Involved:1. Validity of Section 3(1)(b) of the Madhya Pradesh Public Security Act, 1959.2. Impact of the State of emergency on the enforceability of fundamental rights.3. Scope of executive power under Article 162 of the Constitution.Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of Section 3(1)(b) of the Madhya Pradesh Public Security Act, 1959:The respondent challenged the order under Sections 226 and 227 of the Constitution, arguing that Sections 3 and 6 of the Act infringed upon the fundamental freedoms guaranteed under Article 19(1)(d) and (e) of the Constitution. The High Court found Clause (i) of the order valid but declared Clauses (ii) and (iii) invalid. The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court that Section 3(1)(b) authorized the imposition of unreasonable restrictions by requiring a person to reside or remain in a specified place, which may not provide residential accommodation, means of subsistence, or could be unfamiliar, thus operating to the person's prejudice. Consequently, Section 3(1)(b) was struck down in its entirety as unreasonable.2. Impact of the State of emergency on the enforceability of fundamental rights:The State argued that during the State of emergency declared on October 20, 1962, the respondent could not challenge the order under Article 226 on the grounds of infringement of fundamental rights. However, the Supreme Court noted that the Act was enacted before the emergency. Article 13(2) prohibits the State from making laws that infringe upon fundamental rights, rendering such laws void. Since Section 3(1)(b) was void when enacted, it was not revived by the emergency proclamation. Article 358, which suspends Article 19 during an emergency, does not validate previously invalid legislative provisions. The Court held that executive actions taken during the emergency must still have lawful authority and cannot infringe upon citizens' rights arbitrarily.3. Scope of executive power under Article 162 of the Constitution:The State contended that under Article 162, it could issue executive orders even without supporting legislation, provided the State could legislate on the subject. The Supreme Court clarified that Article 162 and Article 73 primarily concern the distribution of executive power between the Union and the States, not the validity of its exercise. The Court cited Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur v. The State of Punjab, emphasizing that executive action must not operate to the prejudice of any citizen without legislative authority. The Court concluded that the order made under Section 3(1)(b) of the Act was invalid, and no immunity from judicial scrutiny could be claimed under Article 358 for actions prejudicial to the respondent during the emergency.Conclusion:The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that Section 3(1)(b) of the Madhya Pradesh Public Security Act, 1959, was invalid due to its unreasonable restrictions on fundamental freedoms. The State's executive actions during the emergency could not infringe upon citizens' rights without valid legislative backing.