case comments on- state of madras v V.G.Rao(AIR 1952 SC 196)

Constitutional law final draft
Case comment on the case of
State of Madras Vs. V.G. Row( on behalf of appellant)
Crlj.1952 page no 967.


Submitted to-:
Mr. kumar kartikeyan
Subject teacher
Constitutional law II
Submitted by-:
Kundan kumar ojha
B.A.LL.B 4th semester
Roll no-883027



BRIEF FACT OF THE CASE
On 10 March 1950 State of Tamilnadu by passing an ordinance declared a society named “Peoples Education Society as unlawful by taking a ground that society is Association known as the People's Education Society, has for its object interference with the administration of the Law and the maintenance of law and order, and constitutes a danger to the public peace. V.G.Rao who is chairman of the society claimed this action of the state on the grounds of violation his fundamental right conferred under article 19(1) (c) that is right to form organization. When this case was in high court to be decided on 21 august 1950, before that on 12 august state government brought an amendment in section 15(1) (b) of criminal law amendment act 1908 as amended by criminal law madras amendment act 1950. The amending Act substituted for clause (b) in Section 15 (2) the following clause:-
(b) Which has been declared by the State Government by notification in the official Gazette to be unlawful on the ground (to be specified in the notification) that such association -
(i) Constitutes a danger to the public peace, or
(ii) Has interfered or interferes with the maintenance of public order or has such interference for its object, or
(Iii) has interfered or interferes with the administration of the law, or has such interference for its object".
High court by 3 judge bench allowed his petition and grants a certificate to state of madras under article 132 of Indian constitution. Now state of madras has brought this appeal in Supreme Court.




ISSUES
1) Whether the action of government actually abridged the fundamental right of chairman of the peoples education society conferred under article 19(1) (c)?
2) Whether amendment which has been bring in sec-15(2) (b) was justifiable?
ARGUMENTS FOR PETITIONER SIDE
By justifying the raised issue I would like to state the restriction on article 19(1)(c) of the constitution is provided under article 19(4) . Here in this case an affidavit has been filed by that society declaring his agenda and works in the society. The declared objects of the Society as set out in the affidavit of the respondent are :
(a) To encourage, promote, diffuse and popularize useful knowledge in all sciences and more especially social science;
(b) To encourage, prompt diffuse and popularize political education among people;
(c) To encourage promote and popularize the study and understanding of all social and political problems and bring about social and political reforms; and
(d) To promotes encourage and popularize art, literature and drama.
In a counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the appellant by the Deputy Secretary to Government Public Department, that according to information received by the Government, the Society was actively helping the Communist party in Madras which had been declared unlawful in August, 1949 by utilizing its funds through its secretary for carrying on propaganda on behalf of the Party.
By looking this new propaganda of society it appears not in the interest of public order, so nothing in sub clause (c) which can prevent state from making any law on the grounds of violation of public order which is satisfied here.
Moreover the new amended section 15(2)(b)(iii) says has interfered or interferes with the administration of the law, or has such interference for its object". Here the matter which should be emphasize is “or has such interference for its object” which has been found by the Deputy Secretary to Government Public Department, that according to information received by the Government that was Society was actively helping the Communist party in Madras which had been declared unlawful in August, 1949 by utilizing its funds through its secretary for carrying on propaganda on behalf of the Party, and that the declared on objects of the Society were intended to camouflage its real activities. Here this is the fact that shows that the society had such interference with its object that is why on the grounds of section 15(2)(b)(iii) it justified to declare that society unlawful.
In response to 2nd issue raised in this case which is Whether amendment which has been bring in sec 15(2)(b) was justifiable? I would support it by the argument and precedent of case law decided in Dr. N.B. KhareVs. The State of Delhi case where the court said The law providing reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by article 19 may contain substantive provisions as well as procedural provisions. While the reasonableness of the restrictions has to be considered with regard to the exercise of the right, it does not necessarily exclude from the consideration of the Court the question of reasonableness of the procedural part of the law , and four out of five judge bench agreed that if at the prima facia it appears that any organization is creating disturbance to maintain law and order the government can declare it unlawful without notification. The court of khare case also stated that both the substantive and the procedural aspects of the impugned restrictive law should be examined from the point of view of reasonableness; that is to say, the Court should consider not only factors such as the duration and the extent of the restrictions, but also the circumstances under which and the manner in which their imposition has been authorized. old section 16 expressly conferred on the Provincial Government power to declare association unlawful if, in its opinion, there existed certain specified grounds in relation to them, those grounds are now incorporated in section 15 (2) (b) as amended, and the reference to the "opinion" of the Government is dropped. This led to some discussion before us as to whether or not the grounds referred to in section 15 (2) (b) as amended are justifiable issues and the amendment brought in section 15(2)(b) was as same as It was in old section 16, and The amending Act substituted for clause (b) in Section 15 (2) the following clause :-
" (b) which has been declared by the State Government by notification in the official Gazette to be unlawful on the ground (to be specified in the notification) that such association -
(i) constitutes a danger to the public peace, or
(ii) Has interfered or interferes with the maintenance of public order or has such interference for its object, or
(iii) has interfered or interferes with the administration of the law, or has such interference for its object". So according to current factual existence it is justifiable
CONCLUSION
At last in my comment part I would like to say the executive action of state government declaring people’s education society unlawful was very much right in the view of restriction conferred in article in article 19(4) of Indian constitution. It was not violating the fundamental right of chairman of that society conferred under art19 (1) (c). And the question of amendment was raised the reasonableness was also reasonable in the eye of Dr. Khare case where 5 judge bench agreed on same contention. And on the behalf of the appellant state of madras I would request to court to accept my appeal and remain on people’s education society as an unlawful society.