State of M.P. vs Thakur Bharat Singh || AIR 1967 SC 1170 ||

State of MP vs Thakur Bharat Singh , AIR 1967 SC 1170

State of M.P. vs Thakur Bharat Singh

Facts of the Case

On April 24, 1963, the State Government of Madhya Pradesh issued an order under Section 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Public Security Act, 1959, directing Thakur Bharat Singh to refrain from being present in any location within the Raipur District. He was further required to relocate to Jhabua town and reside within its municipal limits, reporting his movements daily at 8 AM and 8 PM to the local police station.

Challenging this order, Bharat Singh filed a writ petition in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, arguing that Sections 3 and 6 of the Act violated his fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(d) and (e) of the Constitution of India. He contended that the order was arbitrary, discriminatory, and lacked procedural fairness. The High Court ruled in his favor, striking down the provisions of the Act. The State of Madhya Pradesh then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues

1. Whether Section 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Public Security Act violated the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution.

2. Whether the executive order issued during a state of emergency was valid, despite infringing upon fundamental rights.

Relevant Legal Provisions

1. Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution of India – Guarantees the right to move freely throughout the territory of India.

2. Article 19(1)(e) of the Constitution of India – Provides the right to reside and settle in any part of India.

3. Article 19(5) of the Constitution of India – Allows the State to impose reasonable restrictions on the rights under Article 19(1)(d) and (e) in the interest of the general public or for the protection of scheduled tribes.

4. Article 21 of the Constitution of India – Ensures the right to life and personal liberty, which includes freedom from arbitrary State action.

5. Madhya Pradesh Public Security Act, 1959 (Section 3) – Granted the government the power to restrict the movement of individuals for security reasons but was struck down for being unconstitutional.

Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, declaring Section 3(1)(b) of the Madhya Pradesh Public Security Act unconstitutional. The Court reasoned that the provision allowed unreasonable restrictions on an individual’s freedom of movement and residence, thereby violating Article 19(1)(d) and (e). It emphasized that all executive actions affecting individuals adversely must be backed by valid legislation and adhere to constitutional principles.

The Court further held that the existence of a state of emergency does not automatically empower the executive to curtail fundamental rights without due legal authority. Any restrictions imposed must meet the test of reasonableness and procedural safeguards to prevent arbitrary misuse of power.

-ADITYA

DSNLU