Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.18 seconds)Mohammad Siddiq And Ors. vs The State Of U.P. And Anr. on 13 November, 1967
21. It is not for the Court to consider whether the District Magistrate was right in his apprehension of a likelihood of a breach of the peace, when his bona fides have not been questioned. It is a matter entirely for the local authorities to consider whether in the particular circumstances if a procession was taken out it would lead to public disturbance; whether it would be more suitable on a particular occasion to bind down a particular party and to allow the procession to be taken out up to a certain limit and not to allow it to go to a particular spotthese are matters in the discretion of the local authorities. It is not open to the Courts to take the administration in their own hands and to issue orders to the Magistrates in this respect. There is nothing in the Constitution to show that the right to take any profession as such has been guaranteed as a fundamental right; what is guaranteed is the right to assemble peacefully but without arms and the said right is also subject to such restrictions as may be imposed in the interest of the public order. It is open to the Magistrate to give any order that may be necessary to prevent obstructions of public thoroughofares or reach of the peace. In the larger interest of the public such restrictions are bound to be imposed. Thus the right of a party to take out processions is subject to the aforesaid restrictions, Mohammed Siddiqui v. State of U.P. and Sheik Piru Bus v. Kalandi Pati .
Section 1 in The Police Act, 1861 [Entire Act]
Section 31 in The Police Act, 1861 [Entire Act]
The Police Act, 1861
The Police Act, 1949
Shaik Piru Bork And Ors. vs Kalandi Pati And Ors. on 2 January, 1963
21. It is not for the Court to consider whether the District Magistrate was right in his apprehension of a likelihood of a breach of the peace, when his bona fides have not been questioned. It is a matter entirely for the local authorities to consider whether in the particular circumstances if a procession was taken out it would lead to public disturbance; whether it would be more suitable on a particular occasion to bind down a particular party and to allow the procession to be taken out up to a certain limit and not to allow it to go to a particular spotthese are matters in the discretion of the local authorities. It is not open to the Courts to take the administration in their own hands and to issue orders to the Magistrates in this respect. There is nothing in the Constitution to show that the right to take any profession as such has been guaranteed as a fundamental right; what is guaranteed is the right to assemble peacefully but without arms and the said right is also subject to such restrictions as may be imposed in the interest of the public order. It is open to the Magistrate to give any order that may be necessary to prevent obstructions of public thoroughofares or reach of the peace. In the larger interest of the public such restrictions are bound to be imposed. Thus the right of a party to take out processions is subject to the aforesaid restrictions, Mohammed Siddiqui v. State of U.P. and Sheik Piru Bus v. Kalandi Pati .
1