9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Constitutionality of Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932. 2. Allegations against the petitioner under Section 117 I.P.C. and Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act. 3. Interpretation of Article 19 of the Constitution of India in relation to the rights of citizens and the restrictions imposed by Section 7. Detailed Analysis: 1. Constitutionality of Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932: The primary issue is whether Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932, is ultra vires the Constitution of India. The petitioner contended that portions of Section 7 violate the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution, specifically the rights to freedom of speech and expression, to assemble peaceably without arms, and to move freely throughout the territory of India. The court examined the relevant portions of Article 19 and the restrictions imposed by Clauses (2), (3), and (5) of Article 19. It emphasized that the Constitution does not envisage absolute or uncontrolled liberty, as such unfettered rights would lead to anarchy and disorder. The court cited the principle that the welfare of the community holds priority over individual rights, and reasonable restrictions are necessary for the maintenance of public order. The court concluded that the prohibitions contained in Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act are reasonable restrictions for the maintenance of public order and do not transgress the limits set by the Constitution. The court referenced previous decisions, including those of the Bombay High Court and its own High Court, which upheld the constitutionality of Section 7. The court also considered American case law but found that the conditions in the United States differ materially from those in India. The court emphasized that the interpretation of Section 7 should be in harmony with the Constitution and should not be seen as an encroachment on any rights but rather as a safeguard for the protection of those rights. 2. Allegations Against the Petitioner: The petitioner, a member of the Legislative Assembly of Uttar Pradesh, was prosecuted under Section 117 I.P.C. and Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act for distributing pamphlets inciting party members to engage in various activities. These activities included taking possession of land, surrounding government offices, picketing liquor shops, and more. The court refrained from expressing any opinion on whether the allegations against the petitioner would be made out, as it was not the stage to decide on the merits of the case. The court's focus was on whether the incitement for the commission of these acts is punishable under Section 7 and whether the said Act is ultra vires the Constitution. 3. Interpretation of Article 19 of the Constitution of India: The court examined the rights conferred by Article 19 in the context of the restrictions imposed by Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act. The court noted that the rights given to citizens are not absolute and must be balanced against the rights of other citizens. The State cannot favor one group over another, and no citizen can exercise their rights in a manner that interferes with the rights of others. The court concluded that the prohibitions in Section 7 are reasonable restrictions necessary for maintaining public order. The court emphasized that the interpretation of Section 7 should be such that it harmonizes with the Constitution and does not infringe on the fundamental rights of citizens. The court also discussed the presumption of constitutionality of an enactment and the duty of the court to harmonize the impugned law with the Constitution. The court found that a harmonious interpretation of Section 7 is possible and that the provisions of Section 7 do not encroach on the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Conclusion: The court held that Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932, is intra vires the Constitution of India. The court also noted that even if certain portions of Section 7 were found to be ultra vires, they are severable, and the remaining parts of Section 7 would still be valid. The case was sent back to the Magistrate for disposal in conformity with the court's decision.
|
