Judgments

ROMESH THAPPAR VS. THE STATE OF MADRAS (CASE SUMMARY)

The Supreme Court in Romesh Thappar Vs. Union of India (1950) SCR  594 held that freedom of expression includes freedom of propagation of ideas and such freedom is ensured by freedom of circulation.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The Petitioner was the printer, publisher and editor of recently started weekly journal in English called Cross Roads printed and published in Bombay. The Government of Madras in exercise of their powers under Section 9 (1A) of the Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1949 issued an order No. MS 1333 dated 1st March, 1950 whereby they imposed a ban upon entry and circulation of journal in Madras State for purposes of securing public safety and maintenance of public order.

The Petitioner challenged the ban before the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

FINDINGS OF THE SUPREME COURT

The Petitioner contended that the order passed by Government of Madras under Section 9 (1A) of Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1949 contravenes his rights under Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution as such Section 9 (1A) of Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1949 is void under Article 13 (1) of the Constitution.

A preliminary objection was raised by the Respondent that the Petitioner should have approached High Court under Article 226 before approaching the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court rejected this contention. The Supreme Court observed that Article 32 does not merely confer power on the Supreme Court as Article 226 does on the High Courts, to issue certain writs for enforcement of rights conferred by Part III or for any other purpose, as part of its general jurisdiction. In that case it would have been more appropriately placed among Articles 131 to 139 which define that jurisdiction. Article 32 provides a “guaranteed” remedy for the enforcement of those rights and this remedial right is itself made a fundamental right by being included in Part III. This Court is protector and guarantor of Fundamental Rights and it cannot,  consistently with the responsibility so laid upon it,  refuse to entertain applications seeking protection against infringement of such rights.

The Supreme Court observed that freedom of expression includes freedom of propagation of ideas and such freedom is ensured by freedom of circulation. Liberty of circulation is as essential to that freedom as the liberty of publication.

The Supreme Court was of the opinion that unless a law restricting freedom of speech and expression is directed solely against the undermining of the security of state or the overthrow of it, such law cannot fall within the reservation under clause (2) of Article 19, although the restrictions which it seeks to impose may have been conceived generally in interest of public order. It follows that Section 9 (1A) which authorizes impositions of restriction for wider purpose of securing pubic safety or the maintenance of public order falls outside scope of authorized restrictions under clause (2) and is therefore void and unconstitutional.

The Petition was allowed and the order of the Respondents prohibiting the entry and circulation of the Petitioner’s journal in the State of Madras was quashed.

_________________________________________________

Mukesh Kumar Suman is an advocate and legal author based at Delhi. He regularly appears before various Judicial Forums including NCLT, NCLAT, High Courts and the Supreme Court. He can be approached at mukesh_suman@outlook.com or +91 9717864570.

Mukesh Kumar Suman

Mukesh Kumar Suman

Mukesh Kumar Suman is an advocate based at Delhi. He has rich experience in civil, criminal, commercial, arbitration and corporate insolvency matters. He regularly appears before District Courts, NCLT, NCLAT, High Court and the Supreme Court. He can be approached at mukesh_suman@outlook.com or +91 9717864570.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *