NDLI: Arup Bhuyan Vs. State of Assam & Anr.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Chilling effect doctrine UAPA ss.10(a)(i) 3 and 4
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Unlawful Activities (prevention) Act, 1967 (37 of 1967)
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4 Referred Case 5 Referred Case 6 Referred Case 7 Referred Case 8 Referred Case 9 Referred Case 10 Referred Case 11 Referred Case 12 Referred Case 13 Referred Case 14 Referred Case 15 Referred Case 16 Referred Case 17 Referred Case 18 Referred Case 19 Referred Case 20 Referred Case 21 Referred Case 22 Referred Case 23 Referred Case 24 Referred Case 25 Referred Case 26 Referred Case 27 Referred Case 28 Referred Case 29 Referred Case 30 Referred Case 31 Referred Case 32 Referred Case 33 Referred Case 34 Referred Case 35 Referred Case 36 Referred Case 37 Referred Case 38
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Reference Answered
Headnote	Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – ss.10(a)(i), 3 and4 – s.10(a)(i) provides that where an association is declared unlawfulby a notification issued u/s.3 which has become effective undersub-section 3 of that Section, a person who is and continues to be amember of such association shall be punishable with imprisonmentfor a term which may extend to 2 years and shall also be liable tofine – Whether “active membership” is required to be proven overand above the membership of a banned organization under theUAPA, 1967 – Held: The object and purpose of the enactment ofUAPA is to provide for more effective prevention of certain unlawfulactivities – s.10(a)(i) can be said to be absolutely in consonancewith Arts. 19(1), (2) & (4) of the Constitution and can be said to bein furtherance of the object and purpose for which the UAPA hasbeen enacted – Before any organization is declared unlawful, adetailed procedure is required to be followed including wide publicityand even the right to representation before tribunal – s.10(a)(i)does not suffer from any vagueness and/or on the ground of beingunreasonable and/or disproportionate – As per s.10(a)(i), a personcannot be punished merely because he was the member of suchunlawful association – If a person has been a member but does notcontinue to be a member after declaration, that does not attractmischief of s.10 – However, once an association is declared unlawfulof whom the concerned person was the member and he wishes tocontinue as a member despite the fact that he is well aware of thefact that such an association is declared unlawful it shows aconscious decision on his part and therefore he is liable to bepenalized for such an act of continuation of his membership withsuch unlawful association – Therefore, thereafter he cannot bepermitted to make grievance of chilling effect – Doctrines /Principles – Chilling effect doctrine. Constitution of India – Arts.19(1)(c) and 19(4) – Right tofreedom of speech – Value of Foreign decisions – Whether Americandecisions concerning freedom of speech could be relied upon whileconsidering the right to freedom of speech available under theConstitution of India more particularly Art.19(1)(c) and 19(4) –Held: Under the Constitution of India, the right to freedom of speechis subject to reasonable restrictions and is not an absolute right –The Constitution permits the Parliament to frame the laws takinginto consideration the public order and/or the sovereignty of India– Without noticing the differences in American Laws and the Indianlaws, the Supreme Court in the cases of Arup Bhuyan (two JudgeBench decision) and Raneef erred in straightway and directlyfollowing the US Supreme Court decisions – Before following theAmerican decisions, the Indian Courts are required to consider thedifference in the nature of the laws applicable in the respectivecountries – Judgment / Order.Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – s.10(a)(i) –Decisions of Supreme Court in the case of Raneef and Arup Bhuyan(two Judge Bench decision) taking the view on reading downs.10(a)(i) that mere membership of a banned organization will notmake a person a criminal/guilty unless he resorts to violence orincites people to violence or creates public disorder by violence orincitement to violence – Reading down of s.10(a)(i) withoutimpleading the Union of India as a party and more particularlywhen the constitutional validity of the aforesaid provision was notcalled in question – If proper – Held: When any provision ofParliamentary legislation is read down in the absence of Union ofIndia it is likely to cause enormous harm to the interest of the State– In absence of any challenge to the constitutional validity ofs.10(a)(i) of the UAPA there was no question of reading down ofthe said provision by this Court – Reading down the provision of astatute cannot be resorted to when the meaning of a provision isplain and unambiguous and the legislative intent is clear – TheCourt ought not to have read down s.10(a)(i) of the UAPA, 1967when neither its’ constitutional validity was under challenge northe Union of India was heard.Interpretation of Statutes – Doctrines/Principles – “Readingdown Doctrine” – Discussed.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.R. Shah
Neutral Citation	2023 INSC 292
Petitioner	Arup Bhuyan
Respondent	State Of Assam & Anr.
SCR	[2023] 8 S.C.R. 496
Judgement Date	2023-03-24
Case Number	889

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Arup Bhuyan Vs. State of Assam & Anr.

Please Log-in to view this content

Arup Bhuyan Vs. State of Assam

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation --i & Anr. Vs. Bal Mukund Bairwa

Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore Vs. M/s Grasim Industries Ltd. Through Its Secretary

Revanasiddappa & Anr. Vs. Mallikarjun & Ors.

G.t. Venkataswamy Reddy Vs. State Transport Authority & Ors.

Jindal Stainless Ltd. and Anr. Vs. State of Haryana and Ors.

Nevada Properties Private Limited Through Its Director Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

C.k. Gangadharan & Anr. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Cochin

State of Kerala & Ors Vs. M/s. Mar Appraem Kuri Co. Ltd. & Anr.

Arup Bhuyan Vs. State of Assam & Anr.

Arup Bhuyan Vs. State of Assam & Anr.

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Arup Bhuyan Vs. State of Assam

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation --i & Anr. Vs. Bal Mukund Bairwa

Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore Vs. M/s Grasim Industries Ltd. Through Its Secretary

Revanasiddappa & Anr. Vs. Mallikarjun & Ors.

G.t. Venkataswamy Reddy Vs. State Transport Authority & Ors.

Jindal Stainless Ltd. and Anr. Vs. State of Haryana and Ors.

Nevada Properties Private Limited Through Its Director Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

C.k. Gangadharan & Anr. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Cochin

State of Kerala & Ors Vs. M/s. Mar Appraem Kuri Co. Ltd. & Anr.

Arup Bhuyan Vs. State of Assam & Anr.