Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.41 seconds)
Tara Singh Gopi Chand vs The State on 28 November, 1950 cites

Brij Bhushan And Another vs The State Of Delhi on 26 May, 1950

5. Naturally enough, the argument has centred upon Section 124A, Penal Code. Section 153A may be considered a lesser section, which prima facie at least is less likely to have survived than 9. 124A. The learned Attorney General has conceded before us that the case of Section 24 (a), Public Safety Act must be taken to be covered by the recent decision of the Supreme Court holding Section 7 (1)(c) of the same Act to be void Brij Bhusan v. The State of Delhi, .
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 333 - S S Ali - Full Document

Emperor vs Sadashiv Narayan Bhalerao on 25 January, 1944

10. Lastly there is the recent decision of the Supreme Court, already mentioned, declaring Section 7 (1)(c), East Punjab Public Safety Act void under Article 19. At about the same time another case came before the Supreme Court relating to the validity of a section of the Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act (XXIII [23] of 1949), whereunder an order had been made prohibiting the entry into and circulation in the State of Madras of weekly journal. The two oases appear to have been disposed of together, In the majority judgment of the Court in the Madras case there was reference to and discussion of Section 124A, and I think there can be no room for doubt that the statement of its proper interpretation, made by the Privy Council in Sadashiv Narayan's case, (49 Bom. l. r. 526 : A.I.R. (34) 1947 P.C. 82 : 48 Cr. It. J. 79l) was accepted by the Supreme Court as being beyond question.
Bombay High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Romesh Thappar vs The State Of Madras on 26 May, 1950

In some instances at least the unsuccessful attempt will not undermine or tend to overthrow the State. It is enough if one instance appears of the possible application of the section to curtailment of the freedom of speech and expression in a manner not permitted by the constitution. The section then must be held to have become void. As was said by the Supreme Court at p. 424 of the report already cited, Romesh Thapper v. The State of Madras, . "Where a law purports to authorise 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 far as it may be applied within the constitutional limits, as it is 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."
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 526 - S S Ali - Full Document
1