STATE Vs. RAMANAND TIWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference made by the learned Judicial Magistrate exercising first class powers at Monghyr, under the provisions of Sec. 432, Criminal P. C, The learned Magistrate posed two questions for consideration; one question is if Sec. 5, Bihar Essential Services Maintenance Act, 1947 (Bihar Act I of 1948), hereinafter to be referred to as the impugned Act, is unconstitutional and void on the ground that it contravenes the fundamental right of a citizen of India with regard to freedom of speech and expression, guaranteed by Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution; the second question is whether the impugned Act is wholly void on the ground that it amounts to a delegation of the legislative power to the State Government. The learned Magistrate has recorded his opinion that Section 5 of the impugned Act violates the fundamental right guaranteed to a citizen of India under Article 19 61 the Constitution and is not saved by Clause (2) of the said Article. The learned Magistrate has also recorded his opinion that the whole Act is invalid by reason of the delegation of legislative power. Accordingly, he has stated a case and referred it to this Court for decision.

(2.) We have heard learned counsel for Ramanand Tiwari, the person accused in this case of an offence under Section 5 of the impugned Act, and also the learned Advocate-General who appeared for the State of Bihar. The charge framed against Ramanand Tiwari shows that the offence alleged to have been committed by him arose out of a certain speech which Ramanand Tiwari is stated to have made at a public meeting, convened by the Socialist Party, at Lakhisarai on 22-6-1952, The

(3.) It is necessary to point out at the very out--set that no arguments have been heard by us on the merits of the case; that is, (1) on the question if the accused person made any speech at the alleged public meeting, and (2) if the accused person made any speech, whether it came within the mischief of Section 5 of the impugned Act. The case has been referred to us only on the two questions of law which I have set forth in the first paragraph. The questions are entirely questions of law, and it is necessary to state, to avoid any possible misunderstanding or prejudice, that our judgment will be confined to the two questions on which the learned Magistrate has stated a case. Nothing which we have said in this judgment shall be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.