Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2018 (1) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (1) TMI 1521 - SC - Indian LawsRequirement of licence for displaying the Live Band Music in their restaurants - Clause 3 of the Order 2005 - Discrimination or not - principles of equality - "Salus Populi Supremo Lex" which means the safety of the people is the supreme law - "Salus republicae supremo lex" which means safety of the State is the supreme law. HELD THAT:- It is the prime duty, rather statutory duty, of the Police personal/administration of every State to maintain and give precedence to the safety and the morality of the people and the State. Indeed, both are important and lie at the heart of the doctrine that the welfare of an individual must yield to that of the community. The Act and the Order 2005 are enacted keeping in view the safety and the morality of the people at large - whenever the impugned action is challenged on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, we have to keep in mind the well-settled principle of law laid down by this Court wherein this Court has examined lucidly and succinctly the scope and ambit of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) - Similarly, so far as Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution is concerned, this Article accords fundamental rights to carry on any profession, occupation, trade or business. However, the right guaranteed under Clause (g) is made subject to imposition of appropriate reasonable restrictions by the State in the interest of general public under Clause (6). As and when the question arises as to whether a particular restriction imposed by law under Clause (6) is reasonable or not, such question is left for the Court to decide. The test of reasonableness is required to be viewed in the context of the issues, which faced the impugned legislature. In construction of such laws and while judging their validity, the Court has to approach the issue from the point of furthering the social interest, moral and material progress of the community as a whole. Likewise, while examining such question, the Court cannot proceed on a general notion of what is reasonable in its abstract form nor the Court can proceed to decide such question from the point of view of the person on whom such restriction is imposed. What is, therefore, required to be decided in such case is whether the restrictions imposed are reasonable in the interest of general public or not. If the Commissioner finds that the performances specified in proviso may also be brought within the ambit of the Order 2005 then he is always at liberty to include any such performance in Clause 3. The Order 2005 does not suffer from any arbitrariness or unreasonableness and nor it infringes the fundamental right of the Appellant guaranteed Under Article 19 (1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
|