J.C. Shah, J. - (1.) ON April 24, 1963 the State of Madhya Pradesh made as order in exercise of powers conferred by Section 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Public Security Act, 1959 -hereinafter called 'the Act' -directing the Respondent Thakur Bharat Singh - (i) that he shall not be in any place in the Raipur District; (ii) that he shall reside in the Municipal limits of Jhabua town, District Jhabua, Madhya Pradesh, and shall proceed there immediately on the receipt of this order; and (iii) that he shall notify his movements and report himself personally every day at 8 a.m. and 8 p. m. to the Police Station Officer, Jhabua. The Respondent moved a petition in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging the order on the grounds, inter alia, that Sections 3 and 6 and other provisions of the Act which authorised imposition of restrictions on movements and actions of persons were ultra vires in that they infringed the fundamental freedoms guaranteed under Article 19(1)(d) and (e) of the Constitution of India and that the order was "discriminatory, illegal and violated principles of natural justice". Shivdayal, J., declared Clause (i) of the order valid, and declared Clauses (ii) and (iii) invalid. In the view of the learned Judge the provisions of Section 3(1)(a) of the Act were valid and therefore the directions contained in Clause (i) of the order could lawfully be made by the State, but Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 3(1) of the Act were invalid because they contravened the fundamental freedom of movement guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution," and therefore the directions contained in Clauses (ii) and (iii) of the order were invalid. Against the order passed by Shivdayal, J., two appeals were filed under the Letters Patent of the High Court. A Division Bench of the High Court held that Clauses (a) and (c) of Section 3(1) of the Act were valid, but in their view Clause (b) of Section 3(1) was not valid because it violated the fundamental guarantee under Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution. The High Court however confirmed the order of Shivdayal, J., since in their view the direction contained in Clause (iii) of the order was "inextricably woven" with the directions in Clause (ii) and was on that account invalid. Against the order of the High Court, the State of Madhya Pradesh has appealed to this Court.
(2.) THE relevant provisions of the Act may be briefly set out. Section 3 of the Act provides: (1) If the State Government or a District Magistrate is satisfied with respect to any person that he is acting or is likely to act in a manner prejudicial to the security of the State or to the maintenance of public order, and that, in order to prevent him from so acting it is necessary in the interests of the general public to make an order under this section; the State Government or the District Magistrate, as the case may be, may make an order - (a) directing that, except in so far as he may be permitted by the provisions of the order, or by such authority or persons as may be specified therein, he shall not be in any such area or place in Madhya Pradesh as may be specified in the order; (b) requiring him to reside or remain in such place or within such area in Madhya Pradesh as may be specified in the order and if he is not already there to proceed to the place or area within such time as may be specified in the order; (c) requiring him to notify his movements or to report himself or both to notify his movements and report himself in such manner, at such times and to such authority or person, as may be specified in the order; (d) imposing upon him such restrictions as may be specified in the order in respect of his association or communication with such persons as may be mentioned in the order; (e) prohibiting or restricting the possession or use by him of any such article or articles as may be specified in the order. (2) * * * (3) * * * (4) If any person is found in any area or place in contravention of a restriction order or fails to leave any area or place in accordance with the requirements of such an order, then, without prejudice to the provisions of Sub -section (5), he may be removed from such area or place by any police officer. (5) If any person contravenes the provisions of any restriction order, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. Section 4 authorises the State to revoke or modify "the restriction order", and Section 5 authorises the State to suspend operation of the "restriction order" unconditionally or upon such conditions as it deems fit and as are accepted by the person against whom the order is made. Section 6 requires the State to disclose the grounds of the "restriction order". Section 8 provides that in every case where a "restriction order" has been made, the State Government shall within thirty days from the date of the order place before the Advisory Council a copy thereof together with the grounds on which it has been made and such other particulars as have a bearing on the matter and the representation, if any, made by the person affected by such order. Section 9 provides for the procedure of the Advisory Council, and Section 10 requires the State to confirm, modify or cancel the "restriction order" in accordance with the opinion of the Advisory Council. By Clause (ii) of the order the Respondent was required to reside within the Municipal limits of Jhabua town after proceeding to that place on receipt of the order. Under Clause (b) of Section 3(1) the State is authorised to order a person to reside in the place where he is ordinarily residing and also to require him to go to any other area or place within the State and stay in that area or place. If the person so ordered fails to carry out the direction, he may be removed to the area or place designated and may also be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both. The Act it may be noticed does not give any opportunity to the person concerned of being heard before the place where he is to reside or remain in is selected. The place selected may be one in which the person concerned may have no residential accommodation, and no means of subsistence. It may not be possible for the person concerned to honestly secure the means of subsistence in the place selected. Sub -Section 3(1)(b) of the Act does not indicate the extent of the place or the area, its distance from the residence of the person externed and whether it may be habitated or inhabitated: the clause also nowhere provides that the person directed to be removed shall be provided with any residence, maintenance or means of livelihood in the place selected. In the circumstances we agree with the High Court that Clause (b) authorised the imposition of unreasonable restrictions insofar as it required any person to reside or remain in such place or within such area in Madhya Pradesh as may be specified in the order.
(3.) COUNSEL for the State did not challenge the view that the restrictions which may be imposed under Clause (b) of Section 3(1) requiring a person to leave his hearth, home and place of business and live and remain in another place wholly unfamiliar to him may operate seriously to his prejudice, and may on that account be unreasonable. But he contended that normally in exercise of the power under Clause (b) a person would be ordered to remain in the town or village where he resides and there is nothing unreasonable in the order of the State restricting the movements of a person to the town or place where be is ordinarily residing. It is true that under Clause (b) an order requiring a person to reside or remain in a place where he is ordinarily residing may be passed. But in exercise of the power it is also open to the State to direct a person to leave the place of his ordinary residence and to go to another place selected by the authorities and to reside and remain in that place. Since the clause is not severable, it must be struck down in its entirety as unreasonable. If it is intended to restrict the movements of a person and to maintain supervision over him, orders may appropriately be made under Clauses (c) and (d) of Section 3(1) of the Act.;