1963 (10) TMI 36 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Vires of Section 20 of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956.
2. Whether information under Section 20 should be from a special police officer.
3. Whether Section 20 offends Article 14 of the Constitution.
4. Whether Section 20 imposes unreasonable restrictions under Article 19(1)(d) and (e) of the Constitution.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Vires of Section 20 of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956:
The Supreme Court examined the constitutionality of Section 20 of the Act, which allows a Magistrate to issue a notice to a woman or girl suspected of being a prostitute, requiring her to show cause why she should not be removed from her place of residence and prohibited from re-entering it. The Court upheld the vires of Section 20, stating that it does not confer uncanalized and uncontrolled power on the Magistrate.

2. Whether information under Section 20 should be from a special police officer:
The Court held that the information received by the Magistrate under Section 20 of the Act does not need to be from a special police officer designated under Section 13 of the Act. The expression "on receiving information" in Section 20 is not limited to information from a special police officer. The omission of such a requirement indicates that the source of information is not material for the application of the section.

3. Whether Section 20 offends Article 14 of the Constitution:
The Court rejected the argument that Section 20 violates Article 14, which guarantees equality before the law. The Court found that the Act discloses a clear policy and provides effective checks against arbitrariness. The classification between prostitutes and non-prostitutes, as well as between different categories of prostitutes, has a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the Act, which is to suppress immoral traffic and improve public morals.

4. Whether Section 20 imposes unreasonable restrictions under Article 19(1)(d) and (e) of the Constitution:
The Court addressed whether Section 20 imposes reasonable restrictions on the fundamental rights of prostitutes under Article 19(1)(d) (right to move freely) and (e) (right to reside and settle). The Court held that the restrictions imposed by Section 20 are reasonable and in the interests of the general public. The Act provides a judicial process with safeguards, ensuring that the restrictions are not arbitrary or excessive. The Court disagreed with the Bombay High Court's view that the provision allowing deportation outside the Magistrate's jurisdiction was unreasonable, stating that such measures may be necessary to curb the evil of prostitution and improve public morals.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's orders, and restored the Additional Sessions Judge's orders. The City Magistrate was directed to proceed with the enquiry on merits. The Court concluded that Section 20 of the Act does not infringe the fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 19(1)(d) and (e) of the Constitution.