9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Validity of the externment order under section 27(1) of the City of Bombay Police Act. 2. Conflict between the provisions of section 27(1) and fundamental rights under article 19(1)(d) and (e) of the Constitution. 3. Allegation of discriminatory nature of section 27(1) violating article 14 of the Constitution. Analysis: Issue 1: Validity of the externment order under section 27(1) of the City of Bombay Police Act: The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to restrain enforcement of an externment order served on him under section 27(1) of the City of Bombay Police Act. The order directed the petitioner to remove himself from Greater Bombay to Amritsar, which was beyond the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Police. However, the subsequent conduct of the petitioner, with the approval of the Commissioner of Police, rectified the defect by choosing to stay at Kalyan within the State of Bombay. The court opined that the order, though irregular, was effectively rectified by the petitioner's choice of residence, and hence, the initial irregularity did not invalidate the order. Issue 2: Conflict between the provisions of section 27(1) and fundamental rights under article 19(1)(d) and (e) of the Constitution: The petitioner argued that section 27(1) of the City of Bombay Police Act imposed restrictions on fundamental rights guaranteed under article 19(1)(d) and (e) of the Constitution, rendering it void under article 13(1). The court examined whether the restrictions imposed by the law were reasonable in the interest of public safety. The court found that the law aimed to protect the public from dangerous individuals and that the restrictions were justifiable given the potential harm posed by such individuals. The court also noted the procedural safeguards in place, such as informing the person of allegations and providing an opportunity to explain, which upheld the reasonableness of the law. Issue 3: Allegation of discriminatory nature of section 27(1) violating article 14 of the Constitution: The petitioner contended that section 27(1) of the City of Bombay Police Act was discriminatory and violated article 14 of the Constitution. The court rejected this argument, stating that the classification under the law was reasonable and justified based on the objective of safeguarding public safety. The court emphasized that the legislation targeted specific cases where witnesses feared reprisals, justifying the departure from ordinary legal procedures. Therefore, the court found no merit in the allegation of discrimination. In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the validity of the externment order under section 27(1) of the City of Bombay Police Act and rejecting the challenges to its constitutionality based on fundamental rights and alleged discrimination.
|
