Madhya Pradesh High Court
Amar Chand Bawaria vs Chief Election Commission Judgement ... on 19 November, 2013
Writ Petition No.20066/2013.
19.11.2013.
Shri R.P. Kanojiya, learned counsel for petitioner.
Shri Siddharth Seth, learned counsel for respondents no.1
and 2.
Shri Vivek Agrawal, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents no.3 to 7.
Heard.
In the wake of State Legislative Assembly Election notified on 4.10.2013 by Election Commission of India, District Magistrate, Jabalpur in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 114 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity 'the Code of 1973'), passed following prohibitory order on 25.10.2013 -
^^Hkkjr fuokZpu vk;ksx] ubZ fnYyh ds izsl uksV Øekad ECI/PN/43/2013 fnukad 04-10-2013 ds }kjk fo/kkulHkk fuokZpu dk;ZØe dh ?kks"k.kk dh xbZ bZA fuokZpu dk;ZØe ds vuqlkj vf/klwpuk dk izdk'ku 01-11-2013 ¼'kqØokj½ dks gksxk] ernku dh frfFk 25-11-2013 ¼lkseokj½ jgsxh] erx.kuk dh frfFk 08-12-2013 ¼jfookj½ jgsxh rFkk fuokZpu izfØ;k lekfIr dh frfFk 11-12-2013 ¼cq/kokj½ jgsxhA Lora= ,oa fu"i{k :i ls fo/kkulHkk fuokZpu lEiUu djkus ds fy, vk;ksx }kjk tkjh vkn'kZ vkpj.k lafgrk fnukad 04-10-2013 ls ykxw gks xbZ gSA ;g vkpj.k lHkh jktuSfrd nyksa] vH;fFkZ;ksa rFkk 'kklu ij leku :i ls ykxw gSA Lora= ,oa fu"i{k :i ls fo/kkulHkk fuokZpu lEiUu djkus ds fy;s iqfyl v/kh{kd tcyiqj ds izfrosnu Øekad viqv@'khys@tcy@fofo/k @1130@13 fnukad 21-10-2013 ds vuqlkj n.M izfØ;k lafgrk 1973 dh /kkjk 144 ds rgr izfrca/kkRed dk;Zokgh vko';d gSA vr,o eSa foosd dqekj iksjoky] ftyk n.Mkf/kdkjh] ftyk tcyiqj ¼e-iz-½ lEiw.kZ tcyiqj ftys ds Hkhrj fo/kku lHkk fuokZpu izfØ;k dks /;ku esa j[krs gq, Lora=] fu"i{k ,oa 'kkafriw.kZ fuokZpu lEiUu djkus ds fy, n.M izfØ;k lafgrk 1973 dh /kkjk 144¼1½ ds varxZr fuEukuqlkj izfrca/kkRed vkns'k ikfjr djrk gwWa % & :: 2 ::
Writ Petition No.20066/2013.
1- dksbZ Hkh O;fDr] ftlesa 'kL= vuqKfIr/kkjh O;fDr Hkh lfEefyr gS] lEiw.kZ fuokZpu izfØ;k ds nkSjku lkoZtfud LFkku ij 'kL= ysdj ugha fudysxkA 2- lEiw.kZ fuokZpu izfØ;k ds nkSjku dksbZ Hkh O;fDr ?kkrd vL= tSls Qjlk] cYye] ryokj] Hkkyk] pkdw] dqYgkM+h] xqIrh] cjNh] f='kwy] ykBh bR;kfn ysdj lkoZtfud LFkku ij ugha fudysxk vkSj uk gh mi;ksx vFkok izn'kZu dj ldsxkA 3- lkoZtfud lHkk] uqDdM+ lHkk] jSyh dk vk;kstu rFkk bu dk;ZØeksa ds nkSjku fdlh Hkh vkdkj ds >.Ms@cSuj@iksLVlZ dk izn'kZu lacaf/kr {ks= ds fjVfuZax vkQhlj ¼,l-Mh-,e-½ vFkok ftyk n.Mkf/kdkjh }kjk izkf/kd`r l{ke vf/kdkjh dh vuqefr ds cxSj ugha fd;k tkosxkA 4- /ofu foLrkjd ;a= dk mi;ksx lacaf/kr fjVfuZax vkQhlj ¼,l-Mh-,e-½ vFkok ftyk n.Mkf/kdkjh }kjk izkf/kd`r l{ke vf/kdkjh dh vuqefr ds cxSj ugha fd;k tkosxkA izdj.k ds rF;ksa ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks /;ku esa j[krs gq, izR;sd O;fDr dks lwpuk nsuk vFko lE;d :i ls lquokbZ djuk laHko ugha gks ikus ds dkj.k ;g vkns'k ,d i{kh; :i ls ikfjr fd;k tkrk gSA bl vkns'k ds mYy?ku dh n'kk esa O;fDr vFkok O;fDrx.k ds fo:) Hkkjrh; n.M fo/kku dh /kkjk 188 ds varxZr dk;Zokgh dk izko/kku gSA^^ The petitioner, an active worker of National Party (Indian National Congress), besides availing remedy under sub-section (5) of Section 114 of the Code of 1973, has preferred this petition raising the grievance in respect of condition no.3 and 4 contained in the order-dated 25.10.2013, whereby public meetings, rallies, display of banners/flags/poster has been permitted, subject to prior permission by the Returning Officer (Sub-Divisional Magistrate) or Prescribed Competent Officer authorized by the District Magistrate.
Grievance is raised on the ground that stipulation contained in condition no.3 and 4 of the impugned order-dated 25.10.2013 infringes fundamental right of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
:: 3 ::
Writ Petition No.20066/2013.
Evidently, the impugned order has been issued in purported exercise of the powers under sub-section (1) of Section 144 of the Code of 1973, which empowers the District Magistrate to issue order in urgent cases of nuisance of apprehended danger. Apparently, exercise of the power under sub-section (1) of Section 144 of the Code of 1973 is intended to ensure maintenance of law and order.
In Gulam Abbas v. State of U.P. AIR 1981 SC 2198, while dwelling upon the scope of Section 144 of the Code of 1973, it has been observed -
"25. ... In urgent cases of nuisance or apprehended danger, where immediate prevention or speedy remedy is desirable, a District Magistrate, a Sub-Divisional Magistrate or any other Executive Magistrate specially empowered by the State Government in this behalf may, by a written order stating the material facts of the case, direct a particular individual, or persons residing in a particular place or area, or the public, generally when frequenting or visiting a particular place or area, (i) to abstain from a certain act or
(ii) to take certain order with respect to certain property in his possession or under his management, if he considers that such direction is likely to prevent or tends to prevent obstruction; annoyance or injury to any other person lawfully employed or danger to human life, health or safety, or a disturbance of public tranquility or a riot or an affray.
26. The entire basis of action under Section 144 is provided by the urgency of the situation and the power there under is intended to be availed of for preventing disorders, obstructions and annoyances with a view to secure the public weal by maintaining public peace and tranquility.
:: 4 ::
Writ Petition No.20066/2013.
Preservation of the public peace and tranquility is the primary function of the Government and the aforesaid power is conferred on the executive magistracy enabling it to perform that function effectively during emergent situations and as such it may become necessary for the Executive Magistrate to override temporarily private rights and in a given situation the power must extend to restraining individuals from doing acts perfectly lawful in themselves, for, it is obvious that when there is a conflict between the public interest and private rights the former must prevail."
In this context, reference can be had of a decision of the Apex Court in Ishtiaq Hussain Farooqui v. State of U.P. AIR 1988 SC 93 wherein, though the context was in respect of Article 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India, it has been held therein that exercise of fundamental rights under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution is not an absolute right but must yield or give way to maintenance of public order. It was further held that the principles are well settled and it is but for the District Magistrate to exercise his powers in, consonance with the provisions of S. 144 of the Code of 1973.
In the case at hand, it is on the occasion of State Assembly Elections which has led the District Magistrate to issue the impugned order-dated 25.10.2013.
Contention of the petitioner is that with an imposition of condition no.3 and 4 by impugned order, his fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution is breached.
A political worker, in the considered opinion of this Court, does not enjoy an absolute right to hold public meetings, the rally or put party banner, slogan and flag at any time or at any place.
:: 5 ::
Writ Petition No.20066/2013.
Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India stipulates -
"(2) Nothing in sub-clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence"
The impugned order-dated 25.10.2013, when tested on the basis of above analysis, cannot be faulted with.
In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed. No costs.
(SANJAY YADAV) JUDGE vinod