STATE OF M.P. V BHARAT SINGH, AIR 1967 SC 1170
FACTS
On April 24, 1963, the' State of Madhya Pradesh made an order in exercise of powers conferred by 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Public Security Act, 1959 – directing the respondent Thakur Bharat Singh -
(i) “that he shall not be in any place in the Raipur district;
(ii) that he shall reside in the municipal limits of Jhabua town, district Jhabua, Madhya Pradesh, and shall proceed there, immediately on the receipt of this order ; and
(iii) that he shall notify his movements and report himself personally every day at 8am and 8pm to the Police Station Officer, Jhabua.”
ISSUE
Whether the order issued by the State of Madhya Pradesh under the Madhya Pradesh Public Security Act, 1959 is valid or not?
PETITIONER’S CONTENTIONS
RATIONALE
The Supreme Court found that no hearing was provided for selecting the place where the externee was to reside. In the opinion of the Court, the person might not be able to get means of livelihood in the specified place, and the statute made no provision that the person would be provided with any residence or means of livelihood.
In the circumstances the Court agreed with the High Court that cl. (b) authorised the imposition of unreasonable restrictions insofar as it required any person to reside or remain in such place or within such area in Madhya Pradesh as may be specified in the order.
All executive action which operates to the prejudice of any person must have the authority of law to support it and the terms of Art. 358 does not detract from that rule.
HELD
The Supreme Court invalidated a statutory provision which gave power to an executive authority to specify the area where an externee was to stay, because of the absence of procedural safeguard of hearing.
It was held that the order made by the State in exercise of the authority conferred by s. 3(1)(b) of the Madhya Pradesh Public Security Act 25 of 1959 was invalid and for the acts done to the prejudice of the respondent after the declaration of emergency under Art. 352 no immunity from the process of the Court could be claimed under Art. 358 of the Constitution, since the Order was not supported by any valid legislation. The appeal therefore fails and is dismissed.
COMMENTARY
In Prem Chand v UOI. AIR 1981 SC 613 : (1981) 1 SCC 639. The Court regarded externment of a person as amounting to “economic harakiri and psychic distress”.
The decisions mentioned above make it clear that while a law may authorise the executive to extern a person in its subjective satisfaction, the law to be valid should contain some procedural safeguards. A necessary procedural safeguard is that the person concerned be supplied with the grounds of externment and be given an opportunity to make a representation even if it be before an executive officer.
It will not be incorrect to say that the Supreme Court has permitted the Legislature to concede, on the whole, a large amount of discretion to the executive to extern a person from a local area and, thus, tamper with the individual liberty of movement and residence in India. contain some procedural safeguards.There must be a clear and present danger based upon creditable material which makes the movements and acts of the person in question alarming or dangerous or fraught with violence.