BINU POULOSE Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first petitioner who is the minor son of petitioners 2 and 3 was suffering from hemophilia. Petitioners 2 and 3 having refused to provide adequate medical treatment to the first petitioner, the first respondent district Collector issued Ext. P1 directing the fourth respondent Sub -Inspector of Police to take custody of the first petitioner and admit him to the Government hospital immediately. Necessary police protection was also directed to be given to the first petitioner in the hospital so that the doctor is not prevented from treating the child. Ext. P1 is under challenge in this original Petition on the ground that it offends the fundamental rights of the petitioners guaranteed under Arts. 21 and 25 of the Constitution of India. THE petitioners have also sought compensation of a sum of Rs. 50,000/. each from the District Collector as also from the State for violation of their alleged fundamental rights.

(2.) HAVING bestowed my anxious consideration on the various issues involved in the case, I am not satisfied that the petitioners have made out a case for interference by this Court in proceedings under art. 226 of the Constitution of India. The alleged fundamental rights claimed by the petitioners in support of their contentions cannot take precedence over the 'police power' of the State to enforce public order, morality and health.

(3.) IN the words of Das J. of our Supreme Court (Gopalan v. State of Madras, (1950) SCR 88 (292) putting restraint on the freedom of wrong. doing of one person is really securing the liberty of the intended victims. Therefore, restraints on liberty should be judged not only subjectively as applied to a few individuals who come within their operations but also objectively as securing the liberty of a far greater number of individuals,