Freedom of movement restriction held invalid; emergency suspension did not revive void statutory authority for executive action.

Section 3(1)(b) of the Madhya Pradesh Public Security Act, 1959 was held to impose unreasonable restrictions on freedom of movement because it allowed compulsory residence or stay at a place chosen by the authority without hearing, limits on distance or suitability, or safeguards for livelihood, and the provision was invalid in its entirety. Article 358 did not cure that defect during the emergency under Article 352, because it suspends Article 19 prospectively only and does not revive a statutory provision already void under Article 13(2). The impugned executive order, lacking valid statutory support, could not be sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether section 3(1)(b) of the Madhya Pradesh Public Security Act, 1959, authorising a direction to reside or remain in a specified place or area, imposed an unreasonable restriction on the freedom of movement and was therefore void; (ii) whether, during the emergency proclaimed under Article 352 of the Constitution of India, Article 358 validated executive action taken under an invalid statutory provision so as to immunise the impugned order from challenge.

Issue (i): Whether section 3(1)(b) of the Madhya Pradesh Public Security Act, 1959, authorising a direction to reside or remain in a specified place or area, imposed an unreasonable restriction on the freedom of movement and was therefore void.

Analysis: The provision authorised the State to require a person to leave his ordinary place of residence and to reside or remain in another place or area chosen by the authority. It conferred no hearing before selection of the place, prescribed no limits as to distance or suitability, and made no provision for residence, maintenance, or livelihood at the selected place. The restriction could therefore operate harshly and arbitrarily, and the clause could not be confined only to a reasonable operation because it also empowered removal to an unfamiliar place. As the clause was not severable, it had to be tested as a whole.

Conclusion: Section 3(1)(b) was held to impose unreasonable restrictions and was invalid in its entirety, against the State and in favour of the respondent.

Issue (ii): Whether, during the emergency proclaimed under Article 352 of the Constitution of India, Article 358 validated executive action taken under an invalid statutory provision so as to immunise the impugned order from challenge.

Analysis: Article 358 suspends the operation of Article 19 during an emergency only prospectively and does not revive a statutory provision that was already void under Article 13(2). Executive action prejudicial to a person must still rest on lawful authority, and Article 358 does not confer arbitrary executive power. The impugned order, being unsupported by valid legislation, could not obtain protection merely because the emergency was in force.

Conclusion: Article 358 did not cure the invalidity of the order or bar judicial challenge, against the State and in favour of the respondent.

Final Conclusion: The impugned restriction order lacked valid statutory support and could not be sustained on the basis of emergency powers, so the State's appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Executive action affecting fundamental freedoms must rest on valid law, and a constitutional suspension of Article 19 during emergency does not revive or validate a provision that was already void for infringing Part III.

---