State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. Vs. Thakur Bharat Singh

Facts

Under Section 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Public Security Act, 1959 (the Act), the State of Madhya Pradesh issued an order directing the respondent to:

1. Avoid being present in Raipur district.
2. Reside within Jhabua town’s municipal limits in Madhya Pradesh and proceed there immediately upon receiving the order.
3. Report his movements and personally appear at the Jhabua Police Station every day at 8 a.m. and 8 p.m.

The respondent challenged this order in the Madhya Pradesh High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, arguing that Sections 3 and 6 of the Act infringed his fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(d) and (e) and that the order was discriminatory, illegal, and violated natural justice.

The Single Judge upheld the validity of clause (i) but declared clauses (ii) and (iii) invalid. On appeal, the Division Bench ruled that clauses (a) and (c) of Section 3(1) of the Act were constitutional but found clause (b) invalid for violating Article 19(1)(d). The Bench also upheld the Single Judge's decision, stating that clause (iii) was inseparably linked to clause (ii) and thus invalid.

The State of Madhya Pradesh has now appealed the High Court's decision before this Court.

Key Takeaways for Students

Legal Issue

Whether certain provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Public Security Act, 1959, specifically Section 3(1)(b), were unconstitutional for infringing on the fundamental rights under Article 19 of the Indian Constitution?

Holding

The Court observed that we have adopted under our Constitution not the continental system but the British system under which the rule of law prevails. Every Act done by the Government or by its officers must, if it is to operate to the prejudice of any person, be supported by some legislative authority.

Counsel for the State relied upon the terms of Article 162 of the Constitution, and the decision of this Court in Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur v. The State of Punjab MANU/SC/0011/1955 : [1955]2SCR225 in support of the contention that it is open to the State to issue executive orders even if there is no legislation in support thereof provided the State could legislate on the subject in respect of which action is taken. Article 162 of the Constitution provides that subject to the provisions of the Constitution, the executive power of a State shall extend to the matters with respect to which the Legislature of the State has power to make laws. But Article 162 of the Constitution and Article 73 of the Constitution are concerned primarily with the distribution of executive power between the Union on the one hand and the States on the other, and not with the validity of its exercise.

The Court held that the Government's actions did not infringe upon the petitioners' rights, as the mere possibility or prospect of gaining specific customers does not constitute a property right or a vested interest in an undertaking. It was evident that the State of Punjab had not taken any action violating a citizen's rights; rather, it had engaged in a trading activity. Competing with citizens in such a venture does not amount to an infringement of their rights. In this context, the observations cited do not support the argument that the State or its officials, by exercising executive authority, can violate citizens' rights simply because the State Legislature has the authority to legislate on the subject addressed by the executive order.

Viewed in the light of these facts the observations relied upon do not support the contention that the State or its officers may in exercise of executive authority infringe the rights of the citizens merely because the Legislature of the State has the power to legislate in regard to the Subject on which the executive order is issued.

Order made by the State in exercise of the authority conferred by section 3(1)(b) of the Madhya Pradesh Public Security Act 25 of 1959 was invalid and for the acts done to the prejudice of the respondent after the declaration of emergency under Article 352 no immunity from the process of the Court could be claimed under Article 358 of the Constitution, since the order was not supported by any valid legislation.

Final Decision Appeal Dismissed.

Ratio

State or its officers cannot in exercise of executive authority infringe the rights of the citizens merely because the Legislature of the State has the power to legislate in regard to the Subject on which the executive order is issued.