CASE - State Of Madhya Pradesh & Anr vs Thakur Bharat Singh
CITATION - 1967 AIR 1170, 1967 SCR (2) 454
BENCH : Rao, K. Subba (Cj), Shah, J.C., Shelat, J.M., Bhargava, Vishishtha, Mitter, G.K.
FACTS :
The facts of the case of State Of Madhya Pradesh & Anr vs Thakur Bharat Singh are as follows :-
1. The respondent filed a petition in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh challenging an order made under
the Madhya Pradesh Public Security Act.
2. The respondent argued that certain provisions of the Act were ultra vires and infringed fundamental
freedoms guaranteed under Article 19(1)(d) and (e) of the Constitution of India.
3. The High Court declared some clauses of the order valid and some clauses invalid. The State of
Madhya Pradesh appealed to the Supreme Court against the order of the High Court.
4. The respondent also argued that Section 16 of the Act, which required the State to disclose the
grounds of the "restriction order", was unreasonable and should be struck down in its entirety. The
Supreme Court agreed with this argument.
5. The respondent was a firm carrying on the business of preparing, printing, publishing and selling
textbooks. They moved the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution praying for writs of
mandamus directing the Punjab Government to withdraw certain notifications on the ground that they
contravened the funda- mental rights of the petitioners guaranteed under the Constitution.
ISSUES
Whether certain provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Public Security Act were ultra vires and infringed
funda- mental freedoms guaranteed under Article 19(1)(d) and (e) of the Constitution of India.
DECISION
The Supreme Court held that certain provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Public Security Act were ultra
vires and infringed fundamental freedoms guaranteed under Article 19(1)(d) and (e) of the
Constitution of India. The Supreme Court also held that Section 16 of the Act was unreasonable and
should be struck down in its entirety. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of the State of Madhya
Pradesh.
RATIONALE
The Supreme Court held that Sections 3 and 6 and other provisions of the Act which authorised
imposition of restrictions on movements and actions of persons were ultra vires in that they infringed
the fundamental freedoms guaranteed under Article 19(1)(d) and (e) of the Constitution of India. The
Supreme Court also held that Section 3(1)(b) of the Act was void when enacted and was not revived
when the proclamation of emergency was made by the President. Article 358 did not operate to
validate a legislative provision which was invalid because of the constitutional inhibition before the
proclamation of emergency. The Supreme Court held that the order made by the State in exercise of
the authority conferred by Section 3(1)(b) of the Act was invalid and for the acts done to the prejudice
of the respondent after the declaration of emergency under Article 352 no immunity from the process
of the Court could be claimed under Article 358, of the Constitution, since the order was not
supported by any valid legislation.
JUDGEMENT:
The Supreme Court also held that the observations relied upon by the State did not support the
contention that the State or its officers may in exercise of executive authority infringe the rights of the
citizens merely be- cause the Legislature of the State has the power to legislate in regard to the subject
on which the executive order is issued.
The appeal of the State of Madhya Pradesh was dismissed.
SUBMITTED BY PARTH
GUPTA
UILS, PANJAB
UNIVERSITY
4TH YEAR
