Vanga Seetharamamma vs Chitta Sambasiva Rao And Anr. on 19 February, 1963
Kamla China v. State, AIR 1963 Pun 36 is again a case where it was held that Section 20 of the Act is hit neither by Article 14 nor Article 19 of the Constitution. The learned Judge there observed that the Magistrates have not been given any unrestricted powers under Section 20, for in each case it is the duty of the Magistrate to examine the evidence and has come to the conclusion that the removal or externment of a particular prostitute from a particular locality was in the interests of general public. The expression "necessary in the interest of the general public" could not, therefore, be held "vague, uncertain and elusive." While holding so, he referred to the observations made by Sahai, J., in (supra) and differed from his conclusions. He further observed that the classification enjoined as per Section 20 is neither arbitrary nor unreasonable, for that has to be determined on two-fold considerations, firstly, that the woman or the girl has been found to be a prostitute and secondly, that it was in the interest of the general public to direct her removal from the locality in question. In support of this view, the learned Judge relied on the case (supra) which was a case under Section 27 (1) of the City of Bombay Police Act, wherein the Supreme Court repelled the plea that that provision is hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The provisions of Section 20 of the Act are almost in similar terms, with an additional safeguard viz., that it is a judicial decision of the Magistrate and not the executive decision of a Commissioner of Police, and has to be given on evidence. We respectfully agree with the view expressed by the learned Judge of the Punjab High Court. Section 20 is not hit by any constitutional inhibition under Article 19.