SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL PRISON FATEHGARH Vs. RAM MANOHAR LOHIA
LAWS(SC)-1960-1-17
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ALLAHABAD)
Decided on January 21,1960

SUPERINTENDENT,CENTRAL PRISON,FATEHGARH Appellant
VERSUS
RAM MANOHAR LOHIA Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

KHACHERU RAM VS. DISTRIC MAGISTRATE [LAWS(DLH)-1965-3-7] [REFERRED 10.]
INDULAL YAGNIK VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-1962-5-1] [REFERRED]
INDULAL K YAGNIK VS. STATE [LAWS(GJH)-1962-5-2] [REFERRED TO]
HAROOBHAI M MEHTA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-1966-1-5] [REFERRED 19.]
KOLI DANA NATHU VS. G GHOSH SUB DIV MAGISTRATE RAJKOT [LAWS(GJH)-1972-4-5] [REFERRED]
RAJ NARAIN VS. STATE [LAWS(ALL)-1960-8-4] [REFERRED TO]
BHOLA RAI VS. SUPERINTENDENT DISTRICT JAIL GHAZIPUR [LAWS(ALL)-1965-11-25] [REFERRED TO]
RAM MANOHAR LOHIA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-1967-3-12] [REFERRED TO]
FAIYAZ AHMAD VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-1993-12-17] [REFERRED TO]
MAHBOOB VS. SUPERINTENDENT DISTRICT JAIL MEERUT [LAWS(ALL)-1999-2-146] [REFERRED TO]
M V S PRASADA RAO VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-1984-10-24] [REFERRED TO]
JAGDISH NARAIN BABULAL JAISWAL VS. COLLECTOR [LAWS(MPH)-1961-4-6] [REFERRED TO]
THAKUR BHARATSINGH VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-1963-12-4] [REFERRED TO]
RAMNARAYAN VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH BHOPAL [LAWS(MPH)-1969-8-3] [REFERRED TO]
YULITHA HYDE VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-1972-10-8] [REFERRED TO]
DEBENDRANATH SARANGI VS. KULAMANI SARANGI [LAWS(ORI)-1973-8-11] [REFERRED TO]
ANINDYA GOPAL MITRA VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-1993-4-21] [RELIED ON]
AMICHAND VALANJI VS. G B KOTAK [LAWS(BOM)-1964-10-5] [REFERRED TO]
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION STAFF AND WORKERS FEDERATION [LAWS(KAR)-2004-8-65] [REFERRED TO]
ASSOCIATION FOR PROTECTION OF DEMOCRATIC VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2007-11-16] [REFERRED TO]
VALLABH BHURABHAI MARU VS. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE GREATER BOMBAY [LAWS(BOM)-1989-6-39] [REFERRED TO]
VALLABH BHURABHAI VS. POLICE COMMR GREATER BOMBAY [LAWS(BOM)-1989-6-5] [REFERRED TO]
Ahonyammal VS. Secretary to Government [LAWS(MAD)-2002-7-92] [REFERRED TO]
GULABBHAI VALLABBHAI DESAI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-1966-9-6] [REFERRED]
JAGDISH PRASAD VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(SC)-1974-2-25] [REFERRED]
KARTAR SINGH KRIPA SHANKAR RAI VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(SC)-1994-1-109] [REFERRED TO]
SANTOKH SINGH VS. DELHI ADMINISTRATION [LAWS(SC)-1973-2-19] [DISTINGUISHED]
MADHU LIMAYE MADHU LIMAYE VS. SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE MONGHYR:VED MURTI [LAWS(SC)-1970-10-44] [REFERRED TO]
O K GHOSH VS. E X JOSEPH [LAWS(SC)-1962-10-15] [RELIED ON]
RAM MANOHAR LOHIA VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(SC)-1965-9-21] [RELIED ON]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. HARI SHANKAR TEWARI [LAWS(SC)-1987-2-67] [RELIED ON]
ANGOORI DEVI FOR RAM RATAN VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-1988-12-13] [RELIED ON]
ZAMEER AHMED LATIFUR REHMAN SHEIKH VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(SC)-2010-4-65] [REFERRED TO]
VIKAS GUPTA VS. UOI [LAWS(DLH)-2012-2-467] [REFERRED TO]
CHUNILAL VAIDYA VS. H J D PENHA [LAWS(GJH)-1976-3-22] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH VANDHA MODHWADIA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2009-9-366] [REFERRED TO]
SULEMAN ALIAS CHITRO HAJI SUMAR NIGAMNA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2011-3-32] [REFERRED TO]
MOGANTI SRIHARI RAO VS. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE DISI MAGISTRATE VISAKHAPATNAM [LAWS(APH)-1997-4-114] [REFERRED TO]
MOGANTI SRIHARI RAO VS. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [LAWS(APH)-1997-4-101] [REFERRED TO]
PURVANCHAN ADVERTISING ASSOCIATION VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2010-10-8] [REFERRED TO]
REV STAINISLAUS VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-1974-4-11] [REFERRED TO]
MADHAVAN NAIR VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-1963-7-45] [RELIED ON]
K A MOHAMAD KHAN VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-1963-8-34] [REFERRED TO]
VINAYAGA CHATHURTHI MADHYA KUZHU VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-1996-10-47] [REFERRED TO]
M VEERATESWARAN VS. DEPUTY COLLECTOR [LAWS(MAD)-2003-3-78] [REFERRED TO]
RAMA MUTHURAMALINGAM VS. DEPUTY SUPERINTDENT OF POLICE MANNARGUDI [LAWS(MAD)-2004-12-1] [REFERRED TO]
Adhirai M M Ibrahim VS. Commissioner of Police Chennai City [LAWS(MAD)-2005-4-212] [REFERRED TO]
K KRISHNASAMY VS. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT VIRUDHUNAGAR [LAWS(MAD)-2005-12-71] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY C PULJAL VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2005-9-100] [REFERRED TO]
NIRANJAN SINGH BELA SINGH VS. RAILWAY BOARD NEW DELHI [LAWS(P&H)-1962-3-20] [REFERRED TO]
RAM KUMAR PEARAY LAL VS. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE [LAWS(P&H)-1965-5-29] [REFERRED TO]
KACHARU RAM NIADER MAL VS. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE [LAWS(P&H)-1965-8-14] [REFERRED TO]
MADAN LAL THANVI VS. DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE JODHPUR [LAWS(RAJ)-1962-10-18] [REFERRED TO]
KANARAM VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-1990-5-11] [REFERRED TO]
YOGINBHAI NITINBHAI PATEL VS. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [LAWS(GJH)-2012-10-92] [REFERRED TO]
N.V.SANKARAN ALIAS GNANI VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2013-1-94] [REFERRED TO]
CHARANJIT SINGH ALIAS CHANCHAL VS. LT. GOVERNOR, DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-1989-9-45] [REFERRED TO]
YUVAJANA SRAMIKA RYTHU CONGRESS PARTY VS. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2013-10-23] [REFERRED TO]
DHANNA, BHANWROO VS. STATE [LAWS(RAJ)-1985-11-73] [REFERRED TO]
LALJI MULJI VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-1965-1-13] [REFERRED TO]
BINOD RAO VS. MINOCHER RUSTOM MASANI [LAWS(BOM)-1976-2-44] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK VS. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE [LAWS(MAD)-2014-10-28] [REFERRED TO]
S.M. VENKATESAN VS. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE [LAWS(MAD)-2014-10-29] [REFERRED TO]
K. PANDIYARAJAN VS. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE [LAWS(MAD)-2014-10-70] [REFERRED TO]
DURAISELVAM VS. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE OFFICE [LAWS(MAD)-2014-10-84] [REFERRED TO]
G. GURUSAMY VS. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE [LAWS(MAD)-2014-10-103] [REFERRED TO]
KANNAN VS. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE [LAWS(MAD)-2014-10-106] [REFERRED TO]
RAMAN VS. INSPECTOR OF POLICE [LAWS(MAD)-2014-10-110] [REFERRED TO]
S. SARAVANAN VS. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE [LAWS(MAD)-2014-11-1] [REFERRED TO]
TAPAN KUMAR MANDAL VS. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2014-11-22] [REFERRED TO]
C. SELVARAJ VS. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE [LAWS(MAD)-2014-12-5] [REFERRED TO]
BALASUBRAMANIAN VS. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE [LAWS(MAD)-2014-12-26] [REFERRED TO]
MURUGAN VS. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE [LAWS(MAD)-2014-12-27] [REFERRED TO]
A. ANBUSELVAN VS. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE [LAWS(MAD)-2014-10-246] [REFERRED TO]
TAMIZHAZHAGAN AND ANR. VS. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-1966-1-28] [REFERRED TO]
GOODEARTH AGRO CHEM PVT. LTD. AND ORS. VS. THE CONTAINER CORPORATION INDIA LIMITED AND ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2015-2-121] [REFERRED TO]
SHREYA SINGHAL VS. UNION OF INDIA (UOI) [LAWS(SC)-2015-3-72] [REFERRED TO]
NAKKHEERAGOPAL VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-2001-9-154] [REFERRED TO]
ANIL KUMAR VS. GNCT OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2015-5-210] [REFERRED TO]
BHARAT SINGH VS. STATE [LAWS(MPH)-1963-12-18] [REFERRED TO]
SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2016-5-82] [REFERRED TO]
KALPETTA CO-OPERATIVE URBAN SOCIETY LTD. VS. JOINT REGISTRAR CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES [LAWS(KER)-2016-8-8] [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL MATIN KHAN AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHERS [LAWS(GAU)-1990-8-20] [REFERRED TO]
ANAND PRADHAN AND OTHERS VS. VICE [LAWS(ALL)-1993-9-91] [REFERRED TO]
SHARAT BABU DIGUMARTI VS. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI [LAWS(SC)-2016-12-25] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND OTHERS VS. P MOORTHY [LAWS(MAD)-2015-10-307] [REFERRED]
CHIEF COMMISSIONER VS. MADAN ENGINEERING TOOL PRODUCTS [LAWS(P&H)-1966-4-45] [REFERRED]
VINAYAGAR CHATHURTHI MADHYAKUZHU VS. S. SUDALAIYANDI [LAWS(MAD)-2019-6-337] [REFERRED TO]
P.PUGALENTHI VS. ELECTION OFFICER [LAWS(MAD)-2019-4-572] [REFERRED TO]
SUHAIL RASHID BHAT VS. STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR [LAWS(J&K)-2019-10-24] [REFERRED TO]
SOJAN PAVIYANOSE VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2020-2-208] [REFERRED TO]
AMISH DEVGAN VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [LAWS(SC)-2020-12-21] [REFERRED TO]
VINOD DUA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2021-6-3] [REFERRED TO]
ASIF IQBAL TANHA VS. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2021-6-10] [REFERRED TO]
PRAMOD SINGH VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2021-7-20] [REFERRED TO]
ALL INDIA GAMING FEDERATION, THANE WEST VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2022-2-13] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)This appeal raises the question of interpretation of the words " in the interest of public order" in Art. 19(2) of the Constitution.
(2.)The facts are not in dispute and they lie in a small compass. The respondent, Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia, is the General Secretary of the Socialist Party of India. The U. P. Government enhanced the irrigation rates for water supplied from canals to cultivators. The party to which the respondent belongs resolved to start an agitation against the said enhancement for the alleged reason that it placed an unbearable burden upon the cultivators. Pursuant to the policy of his party, the respondent visited Farrukhabad and addressed two public meetings wherein he made speeches instigating the audience not to pay enhanced irrigation rates to the Government. On July 4, 1954, at 10. p.m. he was arrested and produced before the City Magistrate, Farrukhabad, who remanded him for two days. After investigation, the Station Officer, Kaimganj, filed a charge-sheet against the respondent before Sri P. R. Gupta, a Judicial Officer at Farrukhabad. On July 6, 1954, the Magistrate went to the jail to try the case against the respondent, but the latter took objection to the trial being held in the jail premises. When the Magistrate insisted upon proceeding with the trial, the respondent obtained an adjournment on the ground that he would like ;to move the High Court for transfer of the case from the file of the said Magistrate. Thereafter the respondent file a petition before the High Court for a writ of habeas corpus on the ground, among others, that S.3 of the U. P., Special Powers Act, 1932 (Act No. XIV of 1932) (hereinafter called the Act) was void under the Constitution.
(3.)In the first instance the petition came up for disposal before a division bench of the High Court at Allahabad consisting of Desai and Chaturvedi, JJ. Elaborate arguments were addressed before them covering a wide field. The learned Judges delivered differing judgments expressing their views on the main points raised before them. They referred the matter to the Chief Justice for obtaining the opinion of a third Judge on the following two points: "(i) Was the provision of S. 3 of the U. P. Special Powers Act of 1932 making it penal for a person by spoken words to instigate a class of persons not to pay dues recoverable as arrears of land revenue, inconsistent with Art. 19(1)(a) of the Constitution on the 26th of January, 1950 - and "(ii) if so, was it in the interest of public order - The petition was placed before Agarwala J., as a third Judge, who agreeing with Desai, J., gave the following answers to the questions referred to him:
Question No. (i). "The provision of section 3 of the U. P. Special Powers Act, 1932, making it penal for a person by spoken words to instigate a class of persons not to pay dues recoverable as arrears of land revenue, was inconsistent with Article 19 (1). (a) of the Constitution on the 26th January, 1950."

Question No. (ii). "The restrictions imposed by section 3 of the U. P. Special Powers Act, 1932, were not in the interests of public order."

In the usual course the matter was placed before the two learned Judges who first heard the case and they, on the basis of the majority view, allowed the petition and directed the respondent to be released. The State has preferred the present appeal against the said order of the High Court.

;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.