9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Constitutional validity of Section 144 and Chapter VIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). 2. Interpretation of "in the interest of public order" and "in the interests of the general public". 3. Procedural safeguards and reasonableness of restrictions under Section 144 and Chapter VIII of CrPC. 4. Validity of interim bonds under Section 117(3) of CrPC. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Constitutional Validity of Section 144 and Chapter VIII of CrPC: During the hearing, the constitutional validity of Section 144 and Chapter VIII of the CrPC was challenged. The Court concluded that the provisions, properly understood, were not in excess of the limits laid down in the Constitution for restricting the freedoms guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a), (b), (c), and (d). The Court emphasized that the freedoms guaranteed by Article 19 are not absolute and are subject to reasonable restrictions under clauses (2), (3), (4), and (5) of Article 19. 2. Interpretation of "In the Interest of Public Order" and "In the Interests of the General Public": The Court examined the expressions "in the interest of public order" and "in the interests of the general public" to determine the validity of the impugned provisions. It was noted that "public order" is synonymous with public safety and tranquility, encompassing acts that disturb public peace and safety. The Court referred to earlier decisions, including Ramesh Thappar v. State of Madras and Brijbhushan v. State of Delhi, to illustrate the distinction between public order and law and order. The Court concluded that the expression "in the interest of public order" is very wide and includes acts that disturb public tranquility or are breaches of the peace. 3. Procedural Safeguards and Reasonableness of Restrictions under Section 144 and Chapter VIII of CrPC: The Court analyzed the procedural safeguards provided under Section 144 and Chapter VIII of CrPC. Section 144 allows Magistrates to issue orders in urgent cases of nuisance or apprehended danger. The section provides for both prohibitory and mandatory orders to prevent obstruction, annoyance, injury, danger to human life, health, safety, disturbance of public tranquility, or a riot or affray. The Court emphasized that the power under Section 144 must be exercised judicially and can be subjected to further judicial scrutiny. The Court found that there are sufficient safeguards available to persons affected by the order, making the restrictions reasonable. Chapter VIII deals with preventive measures for keeping the peace and good behavior. Section 107 allows Magistrates to require a person to execute a bond for keeping the peace if there is sufficient ground to believe that the person is likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb public tranquility. The Court highlighted the procedural safeguards, including the requirement for the Magistrate to record reasons in writing and conduct an inquiry into the truth of the information before taking action. 4. Validity of Interim Bonds under Section 117(3) of CrPC: The Court addressed the issue of interim bonds under Section 117(3) of CrPC, which allows Magistrates to require a person to execute a bond pending the completion of the inquiry if immediate measures are necessary for the prevention of a breach of the peace or disturbance of public tranquility. The Court clarified that the Magistrate must enter upon the inquiry and at least prima facie inquire into the truth of the information before ordering an interim bond. The Court emphasized that the liberty of a person is involved, and a strict construction of the Magistrate's powers is necessary. The Court held that some inquiry should be made before action is taken to ask for an interim bond or placing the person in custody in default. Separate Judgment by Bhargava, J.: Bhargava, J. agreed with the judgment of the Chief Justice but differed on the interpretation of Section 117(3). Bhargava, J. opined that the Magistrate could direct the person to execute a bond pending the completion of the inquiry without recording evidence and finding a prima facie case. He argued that the power under Section 117(3) is necessary for preventing immediate breaches of the peace and is a reasonable restriction on personal liberty. Conclusion: The Court held that Section 144 and Chapter VIII of CrPC, as interpreted, do not offend the provisions of Article 19(1)(a), (b), (c), and (d). The Court found the provisions constitutionally valid, provided they are applied properly and with the necessary procedural safeguards.
|
