1956 (5) TMI 32 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Constitutionality of Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951.
2. Validity of externment orders passed under Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951.
3. Compliance with procedural requirements under Section 59 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951.
4. Applicability of Section 56 to police and customs officers as witnesses.
5. Reasonableness of restrictions imposed by externment orders.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Constitutionality of Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951:
The petitions challenged the constitutionality of Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, on the grounds that it violated Article 19 of the Constitution. The court referred to the precedent set in *Gurbachan Singh v. State of Bombay* ([1952] S.C.R. 737), where the constitutionality of similar provisions in the City of Bombay Police Act was upheld. The court reiterated that Section 56 was designed to address exceptional cases where witnesses were unwilling to testify publicly due to fear of violence. The court found no reason to re-examine the constitutionality of Section 56, as it had already been upheld in previous judgments.

2. Validity of Externment Orders Passed Under Section 56:
The petitioners argued that the externment orders were illegal and ultra vires. The court examined the specific cases of the petitioners and found that the authorities had followed the procedure laid down in the Act. The externment orders were based on the satisfaction of the concerned officers that the petitioners' activities were causing alarm, danger, or harm to persons or property, and that witnesses were unwilling to testify against them due to fear. The court held that the orders were valid and not unconstitutional.

3. Compliance with Procedural Requirements Under Section 59:
The petitioners contended that they had not been given the opportunity to explain the allegations against them as required under Section 59 of the Act. The court noted that the petitioners had been informed in writing about the general nature of the material allegations against them and had been given an opportunity to appear before the authorities with legal representation. The court found that the procedural requirements of Section 59 had been complied with and that the petitioners had been given a fair opportunity to present their case.

4. Applicability of Section 56 to Police and Customs Officers as Witnesses:
One of the petitioners argued that Section 56 should not apply to cases where the witnesses were members of the police force or customs department, as it was their duty to testify against criminals. The court rejected this argument, stating that the section did not differentiate between types of witnesses. The court held that if the concerned officer was satisfied that any witnesses, regardless of their occupation, were unwilling to testify due to fear, the conditions for applying Section 56 were met.

5. Reasonableness of Restrictions Imposed by Externment Orders:
The petitioners argued that the restrictions imposed by the externment orders were unreasonable. The court acknowledged that externment could have serious consequences for the individuals concerned, but held that the provisions of Section 56 were designed to protect public safety and were therefore reasonable. The court noted that the authorities had the power to cancel the externment orders at any time and that the petitioners could have avoided prosecution by obtaining prior permission to enter the restricted areas.

Separate Judgment by Jagannadhadas J.:
Justice Jagannadhadas, while concurring with the majority opinion, expressed reservations about the broad application of Section 56(b) and the reasonableness of the two-year externment period without periodic review. He noted that externment could be more detrimental than detention, as it forced individuals to start afresh in a new place with a negative reputation. However, he accepted the validity of Section 56 and the externment orders due to the binding precedent set by the previous decision of the court.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, upholding the constitutionality of Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, and the validity of the externment orders passed under it. The court found that the procedural requirements had been followed and that the restrictions imposed were reasonable in the interest of public safety.