Constitutional validity of anti-coercion restrictions upheld by reading Section 7 narrowly and applying severability.

Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932 was upheld as constitutionally valid against challenge under Article 19(1)(a), (b) and (d). The Court applied the presumption of constitutionality and a harmonious construction, reading the provision as targeting coercive or deterrent conduct rather than peaceful loitering or similar activity. It accepted that the section served the purposes of preventing coercion, preserving public order, and protecting the liberty of others. The Court also held that, even if any part were viewed differently, the impugned portion was severable, so the provision remained intra vires.

---

---

Issues: Whether Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932 was ultra vires the Constitution of India for infringing the freedoms under Article 19, and whether the provision could be read down so as to sustain the prosecution.

Analysis: The restrictions in Section 7 were tested against the guarantees under Article 19(1)(a), (b) and (d) and the qualifying clauses permitting reasonable restrictions. The Court applied the presumption of constitutionality and preferred a harmonious construction that would preserve the statute if such an interpretation was reasonably available. It held that the provision was aimed at preventing coercive conduct, preserving public order, and protecting the liberty of others, and that mere peaceful conduct was not the true target of the section. The words complained of were construed as applying only where loitering or similar conduct involved an element of coercion or deterrence. The Court further held that, even on a contrary view, the impugned part was severable.

Conclusion: Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932 was held to be intra vires the Constitution, and the petitioner's challenge failed.

---