Romesh Thapar vs State of Madras
FACTS
Petitioner was a member of the press who used to criticise the policies of the then Prime Minister via his magazine called Crossroads which expressed his scepticism in this regard. At that time a communist movement was growing which could get fuel by petitioner's articles. In view of that exercising power under Section 9(1-A) of the Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1949, the government prohibited the circulation sale and distribution of the magazine via an order. Aggrieved by this the etitioner approached the court.
ISSUES
The issue that the Court was to adjudicate upon was whether the order under Section 9(1-A) of the Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act was in violation of Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution or did it fall within the restrictions provided in Article 19(2).
The Court also had to determine whether the impugned provision was void under Article 13(1) of the Constitution by virtue of it being in violation of the fundamental right of free speech and expression.
JUDGEMENT
The Supreme Court held that freedom of speech and expression includes freedom to freely propagate ideas which can only be achieved by circulation. The order was clearly a violation of Article 19(1) (a) unless Section 9(1-A) of the impugned Act is saved by the reservation provided for in Article 19(2). The court applied the doctrine of severability which means to test a legislation by removing a provision from it to check whether its legal intent has changed or not, if not the statute may be invalid. The court held that it violates article 13 (1) of the constitutiona and therefore ultra vires. Justice Fazal Ali however in his dissenting opinion held that maintenance of peace and tranquillity was an integral part of maintaining state security, thus contending that the impugned Act imposed reasonable restriction on the freedom of Speech and Expression.
コメント