M P MENON Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Ernakulam South Police Station had filed a charge against Shri M. P. Menon for the offence said to have been committed by contravening the provision of S.31(1)(b) of the Public Safety Measures Act V of 1950 (Travancore Cochin) which prohibited the spreading of a prejudicial report. He is said to have delivered a speech on 14-10-1950 so as to undermine the security of the State and to spread false reports about the Government and the Police Force. Such contravention was punishable as an offence under S.31(5) of the same Act. That case had been registered as C. C. 193 of 1950 on the file of the Special First Class Magistrate's Court, Ernakulam. While that case was pending, the accused filed an original petition No. 69 of 1950 before the High Court with two prayers. One was to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Art.226 of the Constitution to direct the State to withdraw the case against him on the ground that the provision of law under which he is prosecuted is void. The other was an alternative prayer to withdraw the case to the file of this court under Art.228 of the Constitution and dispose of it as envisaged therein. Since there were two courses to resolve a controversy, this court considered it proper to follow the course which conforms to the normal procedure of trial and disposal in preference to the one involving the exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction conferred by Art.226. The case was accordingly withdrawn under Art.228 read with S.20(b) of the Travancore Cochin High Court Act for necessary action and numbered here as C. C. No. 1 of 1953.

(2.) Art.228 of the Constitution provides that if the High Court is satisfied that a case pending in a court subordinate to it involve a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution, the determination of which is necessary for the disposal of the case it shall withdraw the case and may either dispose of the case itself or determine the said question of law and return the case to the court from which it has been withdrawn together with a copy of its judgment on such question, and the said court shall on receipt thereof proceed to dispose of the case in conformity with such judgment.

(3.) The case registered is for contravening the provisions under S.31(1)(b) resulting in an offence punishable under S.31(5) of Act V of 1950. The stand taken by the accused is that S.31 of the Public Safety Measures Act 1950 is ultra vires of Art.19(1)(a) and Art.(2) of the Constitution and infringes upon the fundamental rights guaranteed by that Article, It was also argued that the State Legislature was incompetent to make laws regarding matters affecting ' Public Safety" for that is not a subject entered in the seventh schedule to the Constitution either in the State List or the Concurrent List. Such a subject is also not mentioned in the Union List so that it was contended that the Parliament alone had under Art.248 of the Constitution exclusive power to make law with respect to that subject.