Case Analysis: State of M.P. v. Thakur Bharat Singh, (1967) | Judicial Review

The Supreme Court's landmark decision addressed the constitutional validity of specific provisions within the Madhya Pradesh Public Security Act.

Case Title: State of M.P. v. Thakur Bharat Singh

Court: Supreme Court of India

Citation: AIR 1967 SC 1170

Judges:  Justice J.C Shah, Justice K Subba Rao, Justice J.M. Shelat, Justice Vishishtha Bhargava and Justice G.K. Mitter

Date of Judgment: 23/01/1967

Facts

On April 24, 1963, the State Government issued an order under Section 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Public Security Act, 1959, which directed the respondent (Bharat Singh) to comply with the following provisions: (i) refrain from being present in any location within Raipur District, (ii) immediately relocate to a specified town and take up residence there, and (iii) report daily to a police station within that designated town.

The writ petition was filed before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh challenging the constitutionality of Sections 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Public Security Act, 1959 on grounds of infringement of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (d) and (e) of the Indian Constitution. Dissatisfied with the decision of learned Single Judge and Division Bench of High Court, the Special Leave Petition was filed before the apex court.

Issues

• Whether Section 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Public Security Act violated the fundamental right enshrined under Article 19 of Constitution of India?

Laws Applied

• Madhya Pradesh Public Security Act
• Constitution of India

Arguments

On behalf of Petitioners

The State argued that the respondents' appeal before the High Court under Article 226 to claim that the order in question violated his fundamental right under Article 19(1) of the Constitution as the emergency had been declared by the President under Article 352 on October 20, 1962, and had not been revoked till then. However, the Act went into effect before the President declared a state of emergency.

On behalf of Defendants

The defendants challenged the order under Articles 226 and 227 and asserted that Sections 3 of the Act and other parts of the Act that allowed restrictions on people's movements as it is ultra vires to the basic freedoms of an individual under Article 19(1)(d) and (e) of the Constitution.

The order was discriminatory, illegal, and violated principles of natural justice.

Judgment

The apex court held,

order made by the State in exercise of the authority conferred by section 3(1)(b) of the Madhya Pradesh Public Security Act 25 of 1959 was invalid and for the acts done to the prejudice of the respondent after the declaration of emergency under Art. 352 no immunity from the process of the Court could be claimed under- Art. 358 of the Constitution, since the Order was not supported by any valid legislation.

Thus, the appeal was dismissed.

Analysis

Section 3 of the Act, gave the State the right to issue an order on April 24, 1963, stating that DM or State Government has the power to order a person-

(i) that he shall not be anywhere in the Raipur district;

(i) he must live in the town limits of Jhabua in the district of M.P and must go there right away after receiving this order; and

(ii) he must report himself and tell where he is every day to the officer at the police station, Jhabua.

The Petitioners didn't argue against clause (b) of Section 3(1) restrictions, instead, they stated that if clause (b) were used, a person would usually be told to stay in the town where he lives. This was not unreasonable according to the petitioner's arguments as this was made in the public interest and it did not violate any freedom.

Under clause (b), an order can indeed be made for someone to live or stay in a place where they typically live. But as part of its power, the State can also tell someone to leave where they usually live and go to a different place chosen by the officials, where they must live and stay. Under the clause, orders can be made to monitor someone and limit their moves.

The purpose of Article 358 is not to give the government arbitrary power to act against citizens and other people. It only says that laws can be made and executive action can be taken in line with legal authority as long as the state of emergency lasts. If Article 19 had been in effect, these actions would have been illegal. The basic idea is that our federal system is based on the sovereignty of the people with limited government power. It means that government has to follow the will of the people.

Thus, the rule of law indicates that the executives' actions have to be checked there shall be no arbitrariness. Hence, the law will rule the society and not the authorities rule the society.

In a case, the State can make executive orders even if there isn't any legislation to back them up, as long as the State can make legislation about the issue that the order is about. However, Article 162 says that the Constitution comes first, and only then does the executive power of a state cover things that the legislature has the power to make rules about.

Articles 162 and 73, on the other hand, are mostly about how presidential power is shared between the Union and the States. Further "they do not mean," that the Union or State executive can only do their jobs when the laws have passed on certain things on their lists by Parliament or by the State Government. Moreover, Article 162 clarifies that the State president has power over things that the State Legislature can make laws about, not just things that have already been made laws about.

Conclusion

According to the Court, Article 19(1)(d) and (e) provide citizens with basic rights. In the present case, prohibiting a person to live in a district violates freedom of movement. Thus, restrictions on people's movements are void as they violate an individual's basic freedoms.

Important Links