1968 (10) TMI 111 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Upholds Public Health Measures, Declares Sections Unconstitutional

State of Maharashtra and Ors. Versus Himmatbhai Narbheram Rao and Ors.

The Supreme Court declared Section 372(g) and part of Section 385 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, unconstitutional as they infringed ... - Issues Involved1. Constitutionality of Section 372(g) and part of Section 385 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888.2. Infringement of Article 19(1)(f) and (g) of the Constitution.3. Reasonableness of restrictions imposed by the Act.4. Compensation for deprivation of property under Article 31(2).5. Validity of the law under Article 31(5)(b)(ii).Detailed Analysis1. Constitutionality of Section 372(g) and part of Section 385 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888The High Court of Bombay declared Section 372(g) and part of Section 385 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, as ultra vires, stating that these provisions infringe the guarantee of Article 19(1)(f) and (g) of the Constitution. The Supreme Court examined whether these sections were indeed unconstitutional.2. Infringement of Article 19(1)(f) and (g) of the ConstitutionArticle 19(1)(f): The respondents argued that the provisions infringed their right to property, as they were compelled to deposit carcasses at designated places, incurring removal expenses and losing ownership. The Supreme Court acknowledged that a carcass is property but noted that the right to property is subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of the general public. The Court found that the provisions were enacted to protect public health and were thus reasonable.Article 19(1)(g): The first respondent claimed that the provisions infringed their right to carry on business. The Court held that the restrictions were reasonable and necessary to prevent public health hazards, such as the adulteration of food from carcasses.3. Reasonableness of Restrictions Imposed by the ActThe Supreme Court emphasized that restrictions must not be arbitrary or excessive. The Act aimed to ensure the expeditious removal of carcasses to prevent public health hazards. The Court found that the restrictions, including the transfer of ownership to the Corporation, were reasonable and necessary to achieve this objective. The Court disagreed with the High Court's view that the restrictions were excessive, stating that the provisions were designed to protect public health effectively.4. Compensation for Deprivation of Property under Article 31(2)The respondents argued that the Act did not provide compensation for the loss of property, violating Article 31(2). The Supreme Court noted that Article 31(2) applies to laws for the acquisition or requisitioning of property for public purposes. The Act, however, aimed to destroy the carcasses to prevent public health hazards, not to acquire property for public use. Therefore, the Act did not fall under Article 31(2). Additionally, the Act was protected by Article 31(5)(b)(ii), which exempts laws enacted for public health or safety from compensation requirements.5. Validity of the Law under Article 31(5)(b)(ii)The Supreme Court held that the Act was valid under Article 31(5)(b)(ii), as it was enacted for the promotion of public health. The Court emphasized that laws designed to abate public nuisances and protect public health are exempt from compensation requirements under this clause. The Act's provisions were deemed necessary to prevent public health hazards, justifying the restrictions and the lack of compensation.ConclusionThe Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court's orders and dismissing the petitions. The Court found that the restrictions imposed by the Act were reasonable and necessary to protect public health, and the Act was valid under the Constitution. No order as to costs was made.