33. Article 19 – Burden of Prove – Nature and Extent of Right – Distinguished form statute rights – Dhram Dutt v. Union of India (2004) Vol. 1 SCC 712 – a restriction on the activities of the Association is not a restriction on the activity on the individual citizen forming membership of Association – Indian Council of World Affairs Act, 2001 under challenged – Right and Restriction to be dealt with Article 19 (2) to (6) Article 300–A and 19 (1) (f) – Tibia Collage case AIR 1962 SC 448 followed. Society is incapable of holding property. 34. That Article 14 has a pervasive potency and a versatile quality, equilitarian in its soul, but allergic to discriminatory dictates. It is well known that equality is anti-thesis to arbitrariness. Since the license may not be given to a blind man to drive a car, how worthwhile it may be to give the similar license to a criminal to do every sort of atrocities being committed by indulging into the crime of the innocent people. There are inherent restrictions applicable for the enforcement of the individual personal right under article 19, which empowers the state to enforce reasonable restriction on the exercise of the right of the people in the interest of sovereignty, integrity of India security of the state, friendly relations with foreign state, public order, decency or morality etc. including the incitement to an offence pertaining to the reasonable restrictions regarding freedom of speech and expression, to assemble ,to form associations and freedom to reside and move freely throughout the territory of India. 35. That by the constitution (first amendment) Act 1951, there have been further restrictions to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business for professional or technical qualification as well as carrying on any occupation, trade or business by the state and its instrumentality to the exclusion, complete or partial, of citizens. Thus the question arises as to whether there may not be a valid test of classification based on qualities or characteristics necessarily coupled with the object of legislation based on intelligible differential, which has certain nexus with the realities of the time to dealt with the law and order situation by providing necessary restriction over the unchecked liberty granted to the individual detrimental to its integrity and sovereignty for prohibition to avail the benefit of equality clause by taking the rescue for forbid classification. . There cannot be any enforceable fundamental right to an individual for indulging in anti national activities. Thus the verdict given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Minerva Mills Limited Vs Union of India 1980 (3) SCC 625 is required to be reviewed for effective enforcement of the duties caste upon the citizen by passing through the test of Form and Object and Pith and Substance to mould and replace by the test of Direct and Inevitable effect. 36. The state must therefore ensured that the various agencies deployed by it of highly sophisticated technology is increasingly susceptible to abuse. The existence of public emergency are in the interest of public safety relating to sovereignty, security, public order and integrity of India and also for preventing incitement to the commission of an offence may justify the right to hold a telephonic conversation and thus telephone tapping would tantamount to interference and certainly be claimed against the right to privacy unless it is permitted under the procedure established by law. 37. That One restriction is that freedom of religion is subject to public order, morality and other provisions of Part III of the Constitution. In Ramji Lal Modi Vs. State of U.P., the Supreme Court held that the right to freedom of religion assured by Articles 25 and 26 is expressly made subject to public order, morality and health. It cannot be predicated that freedom of religion can have no bearing whatever on the maintenance of public order or that a law creating an offence relating to religion cannot under any circumstances be said to have been enacted in the interests of public order. Section 295-A of the Indian Panel Code does not penalise any and every act of insult to or attempt to insult the religion or religious beliefs of a class of citizens but it penalises only those acts of insult of the religion or the religious beliefs of class of citizens which are perpetrated with the deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feeling of that class. Insults to religion offered unwittingly or carelessly or without any deliberate or malicious intention to outrage the religious feeling of that class do not come within this section. It only punishes the aggravated form of insult to religion when it is perpetrated with the deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of that class. The calculated tendency of this aggravated form of insult is clearly to disrupt the public order. 38. Where the public functionaries were involved in such a malafide and colourable exercise of power that may abridge or abrogate the right of livelihood of a citizen duly guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, the remedy will still be available under the public law notwithstanding that a suit could be filed for declaring the aforesaid transaction as void. This remarkable judgement is an exemplar of a verdict given in a socially sensitized manner containing a complex exception to show the people beacon light in favour of poor uneducated exploited mass who need a helping hand from the legal profession and also from the Hon’ble Courts. This is an attempt to prevent contagious virus of corruption, which is opposed to democracy and social order. Unless this corruption is nipped in the bud that is likely to cause turbulence by a dreaded communicable disease, the same will crumble the socio political system under its own weight.
Posted on: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 03:56:46 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015