LAW

Supreme Court On Restriction on Fundamental Rights

Krishnan Kakkanth, Appellant v. Government of Kerala and others, Respondents.

G.N. RAY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ. Constitution of India, Article 19 - Scope – Imposed restriction whether reasonable - Determination of  Guiding factor is public interest.

The reasonableness of restriction is to be determined in an objective manner and from the stand point of the interests of general public and not from the stand point of the interests of the persons upon whom the restrictions are imposed or upon abstract consideration. A restriction cannot be said to be unreasonable merely because in a given case, it operates harshly and even if the persons affected be petty traders. In determining the infringement of the right guaranteed under Article 19 (1), the nature of right alleged to have been infringed, the underlying purpose of the restriction imposed, the extent and urgency of the evil sought to be remedied thereby, the disproportion of the imposition, the prevailing conditions at the time, enter into judicial verdict.

The Constitution does not recognise franchise or rights to business which are dependent on grants by the State or business affected by public interest. Where a right is conferred on a particular individual or group of individuals to the exclusion of others, the reasonableness of restrictions has to be determined with reference to the circumstances relating to the trade or business in question. Canalisation of a particular business in favour of specified individual is reasonable where vital interests of the community are concerned or when the business affects the economy of the country. Reasonable restriction is to be imposed under a valid law and not by executive instructions.                                                                                                                                                                               

Kerala High Court On Restriction on Right to Work

Sunny Markose, Petitioner v. State of Kerala and others, Respondents.

K.T. THOMAS, Ag. C.J. & S. SANKARASUBBAN, J.

Constitution of India, Articles 19(1)(g), (6), 21 and 47 - Right to work - Trading in liquor - Not fundamental right - Abolition or arrack shops - Plea of deprivation of right to practise trade . Not sustainable as interest of public outweighs inconvenience to trade.

Article 47 of the Constitution of India enjoins on the State of bring about prohibition of the consumption except for medicinal purposes of intoxicating drinks and of drugs which are injurious to health. The article enjoins upon and in turn enables the State to take measures to raise the level of nutrition and the standard of living and to improve public health. To meet this end, State is required to bring about prohibition of the consumption of intoxicating drinks and drugs which are injurious to health. Prohibition may be complete or partial and it also includes regulations. The arrack is one such thing.

Art. 19(1) (g) read with Art. 19(6) of the Constitution spells out a fundamental right given to the citizen to practise any profession or carry on any occupation, trade or business so long as it is not prevented or is within the framework of the regulation if any. There can be no dispute that certain professions, occupations, trade or businesses which are not in interest of the general public may be completely prohibited while others may be permitted with reasonable restrictions. Hence the citizens have no fundamental right to trade in liquor. Therefore the contention that by abolition of liquor shops there will be deprivation of practising trade in arrack and in livelihood is not sustainable as the interest of the public outweighs the inconvenience caused to those carrying on arrack trade.                                                                                                                                                   

Andhra Pradesh High Court On Act of State and Freedom of Religion

Pogakula Laxmireddy and others, Petitioners v. The Principal Secretary to Govt. of A.P., Revenue Department Secretariat, Hyderabad and others, Respondents. G. BIKSHAPATHY, J.

Constitution of India, Article 25 - Freedom to religion - Acts of State offending religious sentiments - "Mutt" on private land - Treated as place of worship by all sections of society - Belief that sacred book written on palm leaves by Holy Saint was preserved in earth under holy tamarind tree at that place - Said place not covered by provisions of Religious Endowments Act (1863) -  Application by person claiming to be the reincarnation of the same holy Saint seeking permission to excavate holy book - Government memo permitting excavation touching sentiments of many devotees - Is liable to be quashed.                                                                                                                             

Punjab and Haryana High Court On Freedom of Expression and Religion

Master Aman Preet Singh and others, Petitioners v. Government of India, and others, Respondents.

R.P. SETHI, C.J., S.S. NIJJAR, J.

Constitution of India, Arts. 19, 25 and 29 – Freedom of expression - Protection of - Offending remarks against religious Guru of Community - Deletion of – Description of religious Guru of community as employee of Moghul emperor in lesson of text book - Guru throughout his life admittedly fought against Moghul emperor and sacrificed his life - Portion describing Guru’ as employee of Moghul emperor - Deleted as it was likely to hurt religious feelings of community.

A Guru who is respected, revered and worshipped and Is admitted to have fought against Moghul emperor throughout his life and sacrificed all that which was precious to him cannot be permitted to be projected to students to be an employee of Moghul emperor as the same is likely to hurt the religious feelings of the community. Freedom of speech and expression implies reasonable restrictions. Freedom of speech can be exercised up to the extents and limits when it does not infringe the right or faith of others. A writing which projected the guru of religious community as an employee of Moghul emperor any such writing which was likely to hurt the religious feelings of community cannot be claimed to be right of the author. Therefore, the offending portion in the lesson of the text book was ordered to be deleted.                                                                                           

Gauhati High Court On Validity of Law or Rule

M/s Kelvin Cinema and others, Petitioners v. State of Assam and another, Respondents.

J.N. SARMA, J.

Interpretation of statutes - Validity of law or rule - Its reasonableness, purpose or object, public convenience, utility, benefit sought to be conferred and public good - These facts ought to be taken into consideration.

Constitution of India, Articles 14, 19.

In interpreting a statute or a rule it has to be borne in mind that legislature does not intend what is inconvenient and unreasonable. If a rule leads to an absurdity or manifest injustice from any adherence to it, the court can step in. A statute or a rule usually should be most agreeable to convenience, reason and should do justice to all. The approach of Bentham regarding law is to deliver the maximum benefit/utility to the people with minimum amount of friction/inconvenience to others.

A law/rule should not be made without a purpose or object and when it is found to, it is to be struck down, further when it is found that the object is illusory and appears to be nothing but a shadow hunting process that law is bad as it does not serve any purpose of the society in general. A law/rule should be beneficial in the sense that it should suppress the mischief and advance the remedy. In interpreting a law/rule it is legitimate to take into consideration the reasonableness or unreasonableness of any provision.

Gross absurdity must always be avoided in a statute/ rule. Law must be interpreted for promoting public good and to interdict power misuse.

Constitution of India, Article 14, 19(2)(6) – Word  "reasonable" - Connotation of - Reasonable restriction- Should not be arbitrary or in excess of public interest - Should be governed by course which reason dictates.

The expression reasonable means rational, according to dictate of reason and not excessive or immoderate. If something is not per se preposterous or absurd, it must be held to be reasonable. Reasonable restriction imposed on person for enjoyment of right should not be arbitrary or of an excessive nature beyond what is required in the interest of public. Reasonableness of restriction depends upon nature of right claimed, object to be achieved, means employed and limitation imposed. One must strike a balance between individual liberty and social control by bearing in mind the principle that courts should not make an approach which will be a body blow to the fibre of the society.                                                                                                                                                                                                           

Government Statement On Rights of Animals

The Government is aware of Universal Declaration of Animal Rights adopted by International League for Animal Rights in 1978. The fundamental duty of every citizen as enshrined in Article 51A of Constitution is to show compassion to all living creatures and protect natural assets like forests, rivers, lakes and wildlife etc. The Government has enacted the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1996 and established an Animal Welfare Board of India. Government is of the opinion that adoption of Universal Declaration of Animal Rights by itself is no effective solution unless; it is fortified with public awareness. Concerted efforts are being made by the Central/State Governments/Union Territory Administration, to increase such awareness among public specially children The Government will continue to do so everything possible for promotion of animal welfare.                                                                                                

Astrology in School Syllabus

Over 150 astrologers from different parts of the country today demanded that astrology be recognised as a science and included in school and college curricula.

It is learnt that the Delhi University has agreed, in principle to start an under-graduate course in astrology. The Lal Bahadur Shastri Vidyapeeth has also decided to start a post-graduate diploma course this year.

The Conference today tried to build up support for the science which is gaining credibility.                                                                                       

Human Sacrifice for Infertility

A nar bali (human sacrifice) was committed in New Delhi on 20 November. "The sacrifice of the boy", the police guess, "could be the work of a childless couple or some very ill person who believes that it would cure him or her".

"Doa" for Shaheed Babari Masjid

On this year's Shab-e-Barat at some places in Delhi, Muslims also prayed for the reconstruction of the Babari Mosque at the very site it had stood.  At some places the prayer was made jointly ... on appeal of the Anjuman-e-Rahbare Insan. Signatories included UF Ministers C.M. Ibrahim, Mohammed Maqbool Dar and Salim Iqbal Shervani and Wasim Ahmed, MP.