Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
IN
PETITIONER:
ROMESH THAPPAR
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
THE STATE OF MADRAS
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
26/05/1950
BENCH:
FAZAL ALI, SAIYID
BENCH:
FAZAL ALI, SAIYID
KANIA, HIRALAL J. (CJ)
SASTRI, M. PATANJALI
MAHAJAN, MEHR CHAND
DAS, SUDHI RANJAN
MUKHERJEA, B.K.
CITATION:
1950 AIR 124
CITATOR INFO :
F
1950
R
1951
E
1951
D
1952
E
1952
R
1953
RF
1953
RF
1957
RF
1957
E&D
1957
RF
1958
F
1959
R
1959
R
1960
RF
1961
RF
1962
R
1962
R
1962
R
1962
R
1963
MV
1966
RF
1967
RF
1967
D
1969
D
1970
F
1971
R
1973
RF
1973
RF
1974
RF
1977
R
1978
RF
1980
RF
1986
R
1986
RF
1989
1950 SCR
SC 129
SC 270
SC 318
SC 75
SC 329
SC 252
SC 384
SC 620
SC 628
SC 896
SC 578
SC 395
SC 725
SC 633
SC1457
SC 171
SC 305
SC 955
SC1621
SC 996
SC 740
SC1110
SC1643
SC 903
SC1923
SC2486
SC 106
SC1461
SC1389
SC 908
SC 597
SC 494
SC 515
SC 872
SC 190
594
(26)
(4)
(25)
(5,16)
(3,4,5)
(31)
(5)
(3,4,5,7)
(12,16,20,21)
(14)
(129)
(13,40)
(8)
(9,16)
(8)
(23)
(29)
(21)
(78,108,110,132)
(2,5)
(48,69)
(16)
(165,227)
(23)
(12,13)
(8,13,14)
(16)
(1705)
(247)
(23)
(77)
(9)
(24,33,34)
(74)
(11)
ACT:
Constitution of India, Art. 19, cls. (1) (a) and (2), 32
Application under Art. 32--Preliminary objection--Fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression--Law imposing
Page 1 of 9
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN
HEADNOTE:
Held, by the Full Court (i) (overruling a preliminary
objection) --Under the Constitution the Supreme Court is
constituted the protector and guarantor of fundamental
rights, and it cannot, consistently with the responsibility
so laid upon it, refuse to entertain applications seeking
protection against infringement of such rights, although
such applications are made to the Court in the first instance without resort to a High Court having concurrent
jurisdiction in the matter.
Urquhart v. Brown (205 U.S. 179) and Hooney v. Kolohan
(294 U.S. 103) distinguished.
(ii) Freedom of speech and expression includes freedom
propagation of ideas and that freedom is ensured by the
freedom of circulation.
Ex parte Jackson (96 U.S. 727) and Lovell v. City of
Griffin (303 U.S. 444) referred to.
Held per KANIA C.J., PATANJALI SASTRI, MEHR CHAND
MAHAJAN, MUKHERJEA and DAS JJ.--(FAZL ALI J. dissenting):
(i) Apart from libel, slander etc. unless a law restricting
freedom of speech and expression is directed solely against
the undermining of the security of the State or the overthrow of it, such law cannot fall within the reservation
under cl. (2) of art. 19 of the Constitution, although the
restrictions which it seeks to impose may have been conceived generally in the interests of public order. Section 9
(1-A) of the Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act, XXXIII
of 1949, which authorises impositions of restrictions for
the wider purpose of securing public safety or the maintenance of public order falls outside the scope of authorised
restrictions under cl. (2) and is therefore void and unconstitutional;
(ii) Where a law purports to authorise the
imposition of restrictions on a fundamental right in language wide enough to cover restrictions both within and
without the limits of constitutionally permissible legislative action affecting such right, it is not possible to
uphold it even so far as it may be applied within the
constitutional limits, as it is not severable. So long as
the possibilitY of its being applied for purposes not sanctioned by the Constitution cannot be ruled out
595
must be held to be wholly unconstitutional and void.
Section 9 (1-A) is therefore wholly unconstitutional and
void.
Per FAZL ALI J.--Restrictions which s. 9 (1-A) authorised are within the provisions of cl. (2) of art. 19 of the
Constitution and s. 9 (1-A)is not therefore unconstitutional
or void.(1)
Brij Bhushan and Another v. The State [1950] S.C.R. 605
referred to.
JUDGMENT:
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Petition No. XVI of 1950. Application under article 32 of the Constitution for a writ of
prohibition and certiorari. The facts are set out in the
judgment.
Page 2 of 9
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN
Page 3 of 9
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN
Page 4 of 9
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN
Page 5 of 9
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN
Page 6 of 9
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN
Page 7 of 9
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN
Page 8 of 9
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN
peace and tranquillity of the Province, (2) There are degrees of gravity in the offence of sedition also and an
isolated piece of writing of mildly seditious character by
one insignificant individual may not also, from the laymans
point of view, be a matter which undermines the security of
the State, but that would not affect the law which aims at
checking sedition. It was also said that the law as it
stands may be misused by the State executive, but misuse of
the law is one thing and its being unconstitutional is
another. We are here concerned with the latter aspect only.
I shall not pursue the matter further as I have said enough
on the subject in the connected case.
Petition allowed.
Agent for the petitioner:--K. J. Kale.
Agent for the opposite party :--P. A. Mehta.
Page 9 of 9