9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved
1. Validity of the Central Provinces and Berar Goondas Act X of 1946 as amended by Madhya Pradesh Act XLIX of 1950. 2. Violation of fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(d) and (e) of the Constitution. 3. Legislative competence of the State Legislature to pass the Act. 4. Reasonableness and sufficiency of safeguards in the Act. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis 1. Validity of the Central Provinces and Berar Goondas Act X of 1946 as amended by Madhya Pradesh Act XLIX of 1950 The appeal challenges the validity of the Central Provinces and Berar Goondas Act X of 1946, as amended by Madhya Pradesh Act XLIX of 1950. The respondent had filed a writ petition under Article 226 challenging the validity of orders passed under Sections 4 and 4-A of the Act, arguing that the Act itself was ultra vires. The High Court upheld this plea, declaring Sections 4 and 4-A invalid, rendering the entire Act invalid. The Supreme Court was tasked with reviewing this conclusion. 2. Violation of Fundamental Rights under Article 19(1)(d) and (e) of the Constitution The respondent argued that the Act violated his fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(d) (right to move freely throughout the territory of India) and Article 19(1)(e) (right to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India). The High Court held that the Act's provisions did not attract the protections under Article 19(5), which allows for reasonable restrictions in the interests of the general public. The Supreme Court agreed, noting that the Act's failure to provide sufficient safeguards against arbitrary action rendered the restrictions unreasonable. 3. Legislative Competence of the State Legislature to Pass the Act The appellants did not dispute the legislative competence of the State Legislature to pass the Act. The Act relates to public order, which falls under Entry 1 in List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Government of India Act, 1935. The Supreme Court acknowledged that the State Legislature was competent to enact legislation aimed at protecting public order and the interests of the general public. 4. Reasonableness and Sufficiency of Safeguards in the Act The Supreme Court identified serious infirmities in Sections 4 and 4-A of the Act. Section 4 allows preventive action against a person only if two conditions are met: the person's presence, movements, or acts are prejudicial to public interest, and the person is a goonda. However, the Act does not require the District Magistrate to formally determine whether a person is a goonda, nor does it provide guidance on this determination. The definition of "goonda" is vague and inclusive, offering no clear criteria for identification. The Court emphasized that the Act must include sufficient safeguards to protect innocent citizens from arbitrary action. The absence of a clear definition of "goonda" and the lack of a requirement for the District Magistrate to make a formal determination constituted significant infirmities. Consequently, the restrictions imposed by the Act were deemed unreasonable, failing to meet the requirements of Article 19(5). Conclusion The Supreme Court concluded that the operative sections of the Act (Sections 4 and 4-A) were invalid due to their serious infirmities. As a result, the entire Act was rendered invalid. The appeal was dismissed, and the order passed by the High Court was confirmed. The Court emphasized the importance of providing clear definitions and sufficient safeguards in legislation that restricts fundamental rights to ensure protection against arbitrary and capricious actions by authorities. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
|
