9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the order under Section 9 (1-A) of the Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1949. 2. Contravention of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. 3. Scope and interpretation of "public safety" and "public order" in relation to Article 19(2) of the Constitution. 4. Jurisdiction and procedural propriety of approaching the Supreme Court directly under Article 32. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the order under Section 9 (1-A) of the Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1949: The petitioner challenged the validity of the order issued by the Government of Madras, which prohibited the entry and circulation of the journal "Cross Roads" in the State of Madras. The order was issued under Section 9 (1-A) of the Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1949. The petitioner argued that the order violated his fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. 2. Contravention of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution: The petitioner claimed that the order contravened his fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. The court noted that freedom of speech and expression includes the freedom of propagation of ideas, and this freedom is ensured by the freedom of circulation. The court cited previous judgments to emphasize that "liberty of circulation is as essential to that freedom as the liberty of publication." 3. Scope and interpretation of "public safety" and "public order" in relation to Article 19(2) of the Constitution: The court examined whether Section 9 (1-A) of the impugned Act could be justified under the restrictions allowed by Article 19(2) of the Constitution. The court noted that Article 19(2) allows restrictions on freedom of speech and expression only if they are directed solely against undermining the security of the State or overthrowing it. The court found that the impugned Act authorized restrictions for the broader purposes of "securing public safety" and "maintenance of public order," which are not synonymous with the security of the State. The court concluded that Section 9 (1-A) of the Act fell outside the scope of permissible restrictions under Article 19(2) and was therefore void and unconstitutional. 4. Jurisdiction and procedural propriety of approaching the Supreme Court directly under Article 32: The Advocate-General of Madras raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the petitioner should have first approached the High Court at Madras under Article 226 of the Constitution before resorting to the Supreme Court under Article 32. The court rejected this objection, stating that Article 32 provides a "guaranteed" remedy for the enforcement of fundamental rights, and this remedial right is itself a fundamental right. The court emphasized that it could not refuse to entertain applications seeking protection against infringements of fundamental rights. Separate Judgment by Fazl Ali J.: Fazl Ali J. delivered a separate judgment, disagreeing with the majority. He argued that the impugned law aimed at securing public safety and maintaining public order should satisfy the requirements of Article 19(2) of the Constitution. He emphasized that disorders involving menace to the peace and tranquility of the Province could undermine the security of the State. He also noted that the misuse of the law by the executive is different from its constitutionality. Conclusion: The majority judgment allowed the petition, quashed the order of the Government of Madras, and declared Section 9 (1-A) of the Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1949, void and unconstitutional. The separate judgment by Fazl Ali J. dissented, arguing that the law was constitutional and aimed at maintaining public order and safety.
|
