BRAHMANAND LAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are seven applications in revision against the conviction of the petitioners on various dates in different parts of the State of Bihar for violation of the provisions of Section 9 (2) of the Bihar Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1949 (Bihar Act III of 1950 hereinafter called "the Act") for which they were proceeded against under Sub-section (5) of Section 9 of the Act. The learned Magistrate in each case passed appropriate sentence upon the petitioners. They appealed against the convictions and sentences and their appeals were dismissed on the point of their convictions, but certain modifications were made in some instances with regard to the sentence. The petitioners have come up to this Court seeking a revision of the orders and for setting aside the convictions and sentences concerned. All the applications involve, apart from the few individual points, a common question of the validity of Sub-section (2) of Section 9 of the Act as also the notification issued by the Government of Bihar, in pursuance of Sub-section (2) of Section 9, being notification No. A/A/204/51-C-8006, dated 29-6-1951. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the individual question for consideration would be the adequacy of the finding recorded by the Courts below as to whether what the petitioners concerned participated in was merely a procession or a public procession and, if the finding merely amounted to their participation in a procession and not necessarily in a public procession, whether the convictions of the petitioners on such finding would be sustainable.

(2.) Mr. B. C. Ghose, who appears in support of the applications in Criminal Revision Nos. 119 of 1954, 169 of 1956, 183 of 1956 and 838 of 1957, has referred to a number of decisions of the Supreme Court as also of this Court and other High Courts in support of his contention that Sub-section (2) of Section 9 of the Act as also the notification referred to above must be held to be invalid in view of the provisions of Arts. 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India. He has referred to the case of Dwarka Prasad Laxmi Narain v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1954 SC 224. That case relates to the validity of the Uttar Pradesh Coal Control Order, 1953, Clauses 4(3) and 7 and 8. According to the provisions of that Order, unrestricted power had been given to the State Controller to restrict trade in coal to persons who held a licence from the Coal Controller. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that this amounted to imposing an unreasonable restriction upon the freedom of business and trade guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution and did not come within the protection of Clause (6) of the Article. Mr. B. C. Ghose has relied upon the principle of that case in support of his contention that in the present instance also the Legislature has conferred unrestricted power upon the State Govvernment or upon the authority to be designated by that Government for prohibiting public processions. The power conferred is thus unreasonable and arbitrary. There is no check upon the discretion of the authority issuing a licence to allow a public procession to be taken out, nor is these any procedure provided for obtaining a redress. He has referred in this connection, in particular, to the following observation in that judgment:

(3.) It has next been urged that Section 9(2) should be held to be ultra vires the Bihar Legislature as constituting a violation of Art. 19(1), also, for this reason that the present Act originated in the promultation of the Bihar Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance No. IV of 1946. The Ordinance was replaced by Act V of 1947. It was extended from year to year. It was in 1949 when Federal Court declared certain provisions of the Act to be ultra vires in the case of Jatindra Nath Gupta v. Province of Bihar 1949-11 FCR 595; (AIR 1949 FC 175) that on 3-6-1949, the Governor of Bihar promulgated Ordinance No. II of 1949. The same was also declared to be ultra vires in the case of Bidya Chaudhury v. Province of Bihar ILR 28 Pat 775 : (AIR 1950 Pat 19). This was then followed by Ordinance No. IV of 1949 promulgated on 22-6-1949. It was then substituted by the Bihar Maintenance of Public Order Act (Act III of 1950) on 4-1-1950. It was amended from time to time and by Act XX of 1951 on 6 6-1951, Section 9 of the Act was amended. Thereafter, it is being extended every two years. The Act, therefore, which might be justified in an emergency now purports to be a permanent Act which amounts to deprivation of the freedom of peaceable assembly and movement of the citizens of Bihar in a permanent manner, although such restriction, in order to be reasonable, can be justified only when an abnormal situation demands it. In ray opinion, there is no substance in this contention. The Legislature has not placed this Act on the statute book as a permanent legislative measure but the situation is reviewed every two years to find out whether the extension of the Act for a further period would be justified in the circumstances. If the Legislature, therefore, which is in the best position to know the conditions of law and order prevailing in the State, is satisfied that a further extension of the Act is warranted, it is not for the law court to say that it should not have been extended. If the Legislature consisting of the representatives of the people coming from different constituencies in the State is satisfied about the desirability of the imposition of the restriction for a particular period, its legislative judgment must be held to be supreme and on this ground the provision cannot be struck down as invalid and ultra vires as violating Article 19 (1) (b) (d) of the Constitution of India.