In Brajnandan Sharma v. State of Bihar (1950), the Patna High Court had delivered a landmark decision concerning the constitutional validity of statutory provisions impinging upon fundamental rights.
Brajnandan Sharma was represented by Advocate Awadhesh Nandan Sahay who had prayed for judicial intervention under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to prevent the enforcement of an order restricting movement of Brajnandan Sharma.
The order was issued under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Bihar Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1949, which barred him from entering the districts of Singhbhum and Manbhum. The High Court had to examine whether such statutory restrictions were justified under the newly enacted Constitution, specifically under Articles 13 and 19 of the Constitution of India.
The High Court's division bench of Chief Justice Meredith and Justice S. K. Das, examined the constitutional compatibility of Section 2(1)(b) of the Bihar Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1949.
The counsel of the petitioner contended that the provision was unconstitutional as it violated Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to freely move throughout the territory of India. Furthermore, under Article 13(1), any law in force before the Constitution that is inconsistent with its provisions must be rendered void. The court concluded that Section 2(1)(b) was indeed unconstitutional as it imposed unreasonable restrictions not safeguarded by the Constitution.
As a consequence, the High Court declared the provision void and prohibited the State from enforcing the order against the petitioner. The judgment drew on the following decisions:
King-Emperor v. Vimlabai Deshpande: Emphasized the burden of proof on the state to demonstrate reasonable grounds when restricting fundamental rights.
Liversidge v. Sir John Anderson: Distinguished between objective and subjective tests of reasonableness, advocating for an objective standard.
Union Colliery Company of British Columbia Limited v. Bryden: Highlighted the limits of judicial intervention in legislative matters.
Fletcher v. Peck: Reinforced the principle that legislative actions must conform to constitutional mandates.
These precedents collectively underscored the judiciary's role in scrutinizing legislative provisions that infringe upon fundamental rights, especially regarding the reasonableness of such restrictions.
The court's analysis focused on the interplay between Article 13(1) and Article 19 of the Constitution. Article 13(1) mandates that any pre-Constitutional law inconsistent with its provisions is null to the extent of such inconsistency. Article 19(1)(d) enshrines the right to freedom of movement, which is a fundamental right. However, Article 19(5) allows the state to impose reasonable restrictions on this right in the interests of the general public or the protection of any Scheduled Tribe.
The petitioner argued that Section 2(1)(b) of the Bihar Act did not constitute a reasonable restriction because it relied solely on the state's subjective satisfaction without any objective standard or criteria. The court concurred, emphasizing that the Constitution requires an objective test of reasonableness, which was absent in the statute in question. The provision allowed arbitrary restrictions based on the satisfaction of an unspecified official, thereby failing to meet the constitutional mandate of reasonableness.h
The court observed that the lack of procedural safeguards, such as the right to be heard or the requirement to specify grounds for restriction, made the provision inherently unreasonable. Without the ability to challenge the restrictions or understand the basis for them, the statute violated the fundamental tenets of justice and fairness enshrined in the Constitution.
The judgment is crucial for the protection of fundamental rights in India. By invalidating Section 2(1)(b), the High Court reinforced the judiciary's role as a guardian of constitutional liberties against arbitrary state actions. It set a precedent that legislative provisions imposing restrictions on fundamental rights must adhere to the constitutional requirement of reasonableness, incorporating objective standards rather than subjective discretion.
The judgement made it clear that legislations and executive orders will be scrutinized by the Court for their conformity with constitutional guarantees. It serves as a litmus test for assessing the validity of laws that infringe upon personal freedoms, ensuring that any imposed restrictions are both justified and subject to judicial review.
Article 13(1) of the Constitution of India declares that any law in force before the Constitution, which is inconsistent with its provisions, shall be void to the extent of such inconsistency. This ensures that the Constitution reigns supreme, and pre-existing laws must conform to its mandates.
Article 19(1)(d): Guarantees the right of all citizens to move freely throughout the territory of India.
Article 19(5): Allows the state to impose reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the rights conferred by Article 19(1)(d), (e), and (f) in the interests of the general public or for the protection of any Scheduled Tribe.
The interplay between these articles emphasizes that while fundamental rights are protected, they are not absolute and can be subject to reasonable limitations under specific circumstances.
The court deliberated on whether reasonableness should be assessed objectively (based on external standards and societal norms) or subjectively (based on individual discretion). The decision leaned towards an objective test, asserting that restrictions must meet a standard that would be deemed reasonable by a "reasonable person" rather than relying solely on the satisfaction of a governmental authority.
The High Court's decision serves as a critical affirmation of the judiciary's role in upholding constitutional rights against arbitrary legislative overreach. By declaring Section 2(1)(b) of the Bihar Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1949, unconstitutional, the court underscored the necessity for laws imposing restrictions on fundamental rights to be framed with objective standards of reasonableness.
This judgment not only provided relief to the petitioner but also established a precedent that protects individual liberties. It established that legislative or executive actions that seek to limit fundamental rights must do so within the boundaries of reasonableness as defined by the Constitution. The judgement was authored by Chief Justice Meredith.
No comments:
Post a Comment