Scribd
Upload
92 views

Legal Presentation: TOPIC-himmat Lal Shah v. Commissioner of Police 15 September, 1972

This legal document summarizes a Supreme Court of India case from 1972 regarding a petitioner whose application to hold a public meeting was rejected. The petitioner argued that the police rules requiring permission were unconstitutional and violated freedom of speech and assembly rights. The High Court dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court found that while the government can regulate public meetings for order, the specific rule giving arbitrary power to refuse permission without guidelines was unconstitutional. Prior permission requirements are allowed if they are reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order.

Uploaded by

Pawan Âgáp
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
92 views

Legal Presentation: TOPIC-himmat Lal Shah v. Commissioner of Police 15 September, 1972

This legal document summarizes a Supreme Court of India case from 1972 regarding a petitioner whose application to hold a public meeting was rejected. The petitioner argued that the police rules requiring permission were unconstitutional and violated freedom of speech and assembly rights. The High Court dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court found that while the government can regulate public meetings for order, the specific rule giving arbitrary power to refuse permission without guidelines was unconstitutional. Prior permission requirements are allowed if they are reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order.

Uploaded by

Pawan Âgáp
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 5

LEGAL PRESENTATION

Supreme Court of India


TOPIC-himmat lal shah v. commissioner of police
15 September ,1972

BY:-PAWAN KUMAR
INTRODUCTION

PETITIONER: HIMAT LAL K. SHAH Vs.


RESPONDENT: COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
AHMEDABAD & ANR. HEADNOTE: The appellant
whose application for permission to hold a public
meeting on a public street was rejected contended in
a writ petition in the High Court.
The appellant whose application for permission to hold a public
meeting on a public street was rejected contended in a writ petition
in the High Court, (1) that the rules framed by the first respondent
under s.33(1) (O) of the Bombay police Act. 1951, were ultra vires
section in that the sub- section does not authorise framing of rules
requiring prior permission for holding meetings and (2) that the sub-
section and the rules were violative of the fundamental rights
guaranteed under art.19(1) (a)and (b) of the constitution. The High
Court dismissed the petition.
Sub-section 33 (1) (0) proceeds on the basis that the public has a
right to hold assemblies and take processions on and, along sawn
though It is necessary to regulate the conduct and behaviour or
action of' persons constituting such assemblies or processions in
order to safeguard the rights of citizens and in order to preserve
public order. The word 'regulate' would include the power to
prescribe that permission in writing should be taken a few days
before the holding of a meeting on a public street. The impugned
rules do not prohibit the holding of meetings but only prescribe that
permission should be taken.
It could not be contended by the 'respondent that as under the Common Law of
England no one has a right to hold a meeting on a highway, and the same law
prevails in India. and therefore, the word 'regulate' means a right to prohibit the
holding of a meeting also. In India, the law has developed on slightly different
lines, and a citizen in India had, before the Constitution, a right to hold meetings
on public streets subject to the control of the appropriate authority regarding the
time and place of the meetings and subject to considerations of public 267 order
While prior to the coming into force of the Constitution, the right to assemble
could have been abridged or taken away by law, after the coming into force of
the Constitution, the right cannot be abridged except by imposing reasonable
restrictions. There is nothing wrong in requiring prior permission to be obtained
before holding a public meeting a public street, for the Tight which flows from
Art. 19(1)(b) is not a right to hold a meeting at any place and time. But, the State
can only make regulations in aid of the right of assembly of each citizen and can
only impose reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order. in the present
case, however, r. 7 does not give any guidance to the officer authorised by the
Commissioner of Police as to the circumstances in which he can refuse
permission to hold a public meeting. The officer cannot be expected to read the
marginal note to s. 33 or to look at the scheme of the Act to spell out the
limitations on his discretion. Therefore, the rule, which confers arbitrary powers
on the authorised officer must be struck down. The other rules which merely lay
down the procedure for obtaining permission cannot survive, but, it is not
necessary to strike them down, for, 'without r. 7, they cannot operate. Rule's 14
and 15 deal both with processions and public meetings and their validity.
JUDGEMENT
Appeal by certificate from the judgment and order dated December 12, 1969 of
the Gujarat High Court at Ahmedabad in Special Criminal Application No. 42 of
1969. M. K. Ramamurthi, J. Ramamurthy, for the appellant. B. Sen, P. Ramesh
and S. P. Nayar, for the respondents. The Judgment of Sikri C.J., Ray and
Jaganmohan Reddy, JJ. was delivered by Sikri, C.J. Mathew, and Beg, JJ.
delivered separate opinions.
Sikri, C.J. This appeal by certificate granted by the Gujarat High Court raises an
important question as to the right of citizens in India to hold public meetings on
public streets, and the restrictions which can be placed on that right.
On August 30, 1969 the appellant made an application to the Police
Commissioner, Ahmedabad, for permission to hold a public meeting near Panch
Kuva Darwaja, Ahmedabad, on September 4, 1969 at 8.00 p.m. in connection
with the All India students' strike sponsored by All India Students Federation, to
be organised on September 5, 1969.
On September 2, 1969, this permission was refused because the "application
was not sent 5 days before the day of the meeting as required by notification of
the Commissioner of Police, No. 982/66 dated February 15, 1966. "The
appellant was also informed that "holding a meeting with or without loudspeaker,
without the permission, amounts to an offence. On August 30, 1969

You might also like