Uncontrolled executive extension of preventive orders violates fundamental freedoms when notice, representation, and review are absent.

An executive power allowing the State Government to extend a preventive order beyond two months under section 144(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 was found to impose an unreasonable restriction on freedoms under Article 19(1)(b), (c) and (d). The restriction was unreasonable because it enabled continuation of the order without notice, without a right of representation, and without appeal or revision, while the safeguards attached to the Magistrate's order did not apply to the Government's notification. The provision was therefore not protected by Articles 19(3), 19(4) or 19(5) and was struck down.

---

---

Issues: Whether the second part of sub-section (6) of section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, empowering the State Government by notification to extend the duration of an order beyond two months, imposed an unreasonable restriction on the freedoms protected by Article 19(1)(b), (c) and (d) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The impugned power was held to be an independent executive power, not a judicial one. The provision permitted the State Government to continue the operation of a Magistrate's order beyond the normal period without requiring notice to the affected party, without providing a right of representation, and without prescribing any appeal or revision against the governmental direction. The safeguards available in respect of the Magistrate's order under section 144(4) did not extend to the State Government's direction. In assessing reasonableness, both the substantive reach of the restriction and the fairness of the procedure were relevant. A restriction affecting fundamental freedoms must be non-arbitrary, not excessive, and supported by adequate safeguards against misuse.

Conclusion: The provision was held to violate Article 19(1)(b), Article 19(1)(c) and Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution of India and not to be saved by Article 19(3), Article 19(4) or Article 19(5).

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the validity of the impugned part of section 144(6) succeeded, and the legislative provision extending the operation of such preventive orders by State Government notification was struck down.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory restriction on fundamental freedoms is unreasonable if it confers uncontrolled executive power to prolong the restriction without adequate procedural safeguards such as notice, opportunity of representation, and meaningful review.

---