NDLI: Romesh Thappar Vs. The State of Madras

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Constitution of India e/s. {I) (a) and (2) Art. 19 32
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Constitution of India, Constitution of India Public Order Act (33 of 1949)
Case Type	Writ Petition
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Petition Allowed
Headnote	Constitution of India, Art. 19, cls. {I) (a) and (2), 32-Application under Art. 32-Preliminary ob1ection-Fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression-Law imposing restrictions for securing public order and maintenance of public safety-Validity-- Severability of Act-Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act (XXXIll of 1949), s. 9 ( 1-A)-Validity. Held, by the Full Court (i) (overruling o preliminary objections) -Under the Constitution the Supreme Court is constituted the 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 right although such applications are made to the Court in the first instance without resort to a High Court having concurrent juris-diction in the matter. Urguhar v. Brown (205 U. S. 179.) and Hooney v. Kolohan (294 U. S. 103) distinguished. (ii) Freedom of speech and expression includes freedom of propogation of ideas and that freedom is ensured by the freedom of circulation.Ex parte Jackson (96 U. S. 727) and Lovell v. City of Griffin (303 U. S. 444) referred to. Held per KANIA C. J., PATANJAL.I SASTRI, MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN, MUKHERJEA and DAs JJ.-(FAZL ALI. dissenting): (i) Apart from libel, slander etc. unless a law restricting freedom of speech and expression is directed solely against the undermining of the security of the State or the overthrow of it, such law cannot fall within the reservation under cl. (2) of the Art. 19 of the Constitution, although the restrictions which it seeks to impose may have been conceived generally in the interests of public order. Section 9 (1-A) of the Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act, XXXlll of 1949, which authorises impositions of restrictions for the wider purpose of securing public safety or the maintenance of public order falls outside the scope of authorised restrictions under cl. (2) and is therefore void and unconstitutional; (ii) Where a la' purports to authorize the imposition of restrictions on a fundamental right in language wide enough to cover restrictions both within and without the limits of constitutionally permissible legislative action. affecting such right, it is not possible to uphold it even so I far as it may be applied within the constitutional limits, as it is1 not severable. So long as the possibility of its being applied for purposes not sanctioned by the Constitution cannot be ruled out it must be held to be wholly unconstitutional and void. Section 9 (1-A) is therefore wholly unconstitutional and void.Per FAZL ALI Restrictions which s. 9 (1-A) authorised are within the provisions of cl. (2) of art. 19 of the Constitution and s. 9 (1-A) is not therefore unconstitutional or void. ( 1 ).
Judge	Honble Mr. Justice Patanjali Sastri Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sir Saiyid Fazl Ali
Neutral Citation	1950 INSC 14
Petitioner	Romesh Thappar
Respondent	The State Of Madras
SCR	[1950] 1 S.C.R. 594
Judgement Date	1950-05-26
Case Number	16

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

Romesh Thappar Vs. The State of Madras

Please Log-in to view this content

A. P. Krishnasami Naidu Etc. Vs. State of Madras

P. Vajra Velu Mudaliar Vs. Special Deputy Collector, Madras & Anr.

Virudhunagar Steel Rolling Mills Limited Vs. The Government of Madras

Kundanbhai Dulabhai Shaikh Vs. Distt. Magistrate, Ahmedabad and Ors.

Subhan Tours & Travel Services Vs. Union of India

Brij Bhushan and Another Vs. The State of Delhi

Ram Avtar Sharma & Ors. Etc. Vs. State of Haryana and Anr. Etc.

People`s Union for Civil Liberties Vs. Un10n of India and Anr.

Jay Engineering Works Ltd. and Others Vs. The Union of India and Others

Romesh Thappar Vs. The State of Madras

Romesh Thappar Vs. The State of Madras

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

A. P. Krishnasami Naidu Etc. Vs. State of Madras

P. Vajra Velu Mudaliar Vs. Special Deputy Collector, Madras & Anr.

Virudhunagar Steel Rolling Mills Limited Vs. The Government of Madras

Kundanbhai Dulabhai Shaikh Vs. Distt. Magistrate, Ahmedabad and Ors.

Subhan Tours & Travel Services Vs. Union of India

Brij Bhushan and Another Vs. The State of Delhi

Ram Avtar Sharma & Ors. Etc. Vs. State of Haryana and Anr. Etc.

People`s Union for Civil Liberties Vs. Un10n of India and Anr.

Jay Engineering Works Ltd. and Others Vs. The Union of India and Others

Romesh Thappar Vs. The State of Madras