9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Withdrawal of a case under Article 228 of the Constitution due to substantial questions of law. 2. Interpretation of the Constitution regarding contravention of notified orders. 3. Validity of Section 3 of the Travancore-Cochin Public Safety Measures Act, 1950. 4. Application of Articles 301 and 304 of the Constitution to the case. 5. Determination of separability of different portions of Section 3. Analysis: 1. The case involved a petition under Article 228 of the Constitution for withdrawing a case to the High Court due to substantial questions of law regarding the interpretation of the Constitution. The accused challenged the validity of notifications related to contravention of orders under Act V of 1950. The accused argued that the notifications violated fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(g) and Article 14 of the Constitution. The High Court allowed the withdrawal of the case to consider these substantial questions of law. 2. The notifications in question prohibited the transportation of paddy and rice without permits and the engagement in rice milling business. The accused contended that these notifications infringed upon their constitutional rights. The High Court examined the conflict between the notifications and the Constitution, particularly Articles 19(1)(g) and 14. The Court determined that the questions raised were indeed substantial for the interpretation of the Constitution. 3. The accused further argued that Section 3 of the Travancore-Cochin Public Safety Measures Act, 1950, lacked the necessary Presidential sanction as per the proviso to Article 304(b) of the Constitution. The High Court accepted this contention, rendering the further examination of violations of Articles 14 and 19 unnecessary. The Court found Section 3 to be void for lack of Presidential sanction, leading to the discharge of the accused under Section 253(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. 4. The Court delved into the application of Articles 301 and 304 of the Constitution to the case. It clarified that the freedom of trade, commerce, and intercourse under Article 301 applied throughout the territory of India, not limited to inter-State dealings. The Court relied on previous orders to support its interpretation, emphasizing that Article 304 encompassed trade within a State as well. The arguments put forth by the State regarding the scope of Article 304 were considered and rejected by the Court. 5. Regarding the separability of different portions of Section 3, the Court applied principles of statutory interpretation. It determined that the entire Section 3 had to be declared illegal and void, as no portion of it could be sustained. Citing precedents, the Court concluded that the legislature did not intend for partial invalidity and that the statute had to be effective in its entirety. Consequently, the Court discharged the accused under Section 253(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.
|
