A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

This case explores the constitutional validity of Section 27(1) of the City of Bombay Police Act, 1902 in light of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(d) and Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner, Gurbachan Singh, challenged an externment order passed by the Commissioner of Police, Bombay, directing him to remove himself from Greater Bombay. He contended that this order infringed his right to freedom of movement and lacked procedural conformity. The Supreme Court considered whether the impugned law was a reasonable restriction under Article 19(5) and whether the procedure followed was discriminatory or arbitrary. The Court upheld the legality of the provision, reasoning that the restrictions were reasonable and aimed at maintaining public order. It further observed that procedural safeguards existed and a responsible authority had enacted the order. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the impugned externment did not violate fundamental rights.

Keywords: Externment, Article 19(1)(d), Reasonable restriction, City of Bombay Police Act, Procedural fairness, Article 14.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgement Cause Title: Gurbachan Singh v. The State of Bombay and Another

ii) Case Number: Petition No. 76 of 1952

iii) Judgement Date: 7 May 1952

iv) Court: Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum: Patanjali Sastri C.J., Meher Chand Mahajan, B.K. Mukherjea, S.R. Das, Chandrasekhara Aiyar JJ.

vi) Author: Justice B.K. Mukherjea

vii) Citation: AIR 1952 SC 221; 1952 SCR 737

viii) Legal Provisions Involved:

• Article 19(1)(d) and 19(5) – Freedom of movement and restrictions

• Article 14 – Right to equality

• Article 13(1) – Laws inconsistent with fundamental rights

• Section 27(1), City of Bombay Police Act, 1902

ix) Judgments overruled by the Case: None

x) Case is Related to: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Police Powers, Administrative Law

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

This case originates in post-independence India, where the Constitution had newly entrenched fundamental rights to safeguard individual liberty. With law enforcement still governed by colonial statutes like the City of Bombay Police Act, conflicts arose between these rights and state powers, particularly regarding externment orders, which allow authorities to remove individuals from a particular jurisdiction in the interest of public safety. Gurbachan Singh, a resident of Bombay, was served an externment order under Section 27(1) directing him to leave the city for Amritsar, later modified to Kalyan. He approached the Supreme Court under Article 32, challenging the validity of the externment order as violative of his freedom of movement and procedural fairness. This judgement provided the Court’s foundational interpretation of what constitutes a “reasonable restriction” under Article 19(5), establishing principles that have influenced constitutional jurisprudence for decades.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The petitioner, Gurbachan Singh, an Indian citizen, lived with his father at Vincent Road, Dadar, Bombay, where his father ran an electrical goods business. On 23 July 1951, the Commissioner of Police, Bombay, issued an externment order under Section 27(1) of the City of Bombay Police Act, directing him to leave Greater Bombay and proceed to Amritsar. Singh sought an extension, and on 30 July 1951, he requested permission to reside in Kalyan, a town outside Greater Bombay but within the State. The Commissioner accepted the request and escorted him to Kalyan.

Singh first approached the Bombay High Court under Articles 226 and 228, but both applications were dismissed. He then filed a writ petition under Article 32 before the Supreme Court, alleging that the order violated his rights under Articles 19(1)(d), 19(1)(e), and 14 of the Constitution. He argued that the order lacked legal basis and failed procedural fairness, particularly because it fixed a residence outside the jurisdiction of the Commissioner and denied the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses whose complaints formed the basis of the externment.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i) Whether Section 27(1) of the City of Bombay Police Act, 1902 violates Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution.

ii) Whether the externment order was void due to procedural irregularity or arbitrariness.

iii) Whether Section 27(1) is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

iv) Whether restrictions imposed under the Act qualify as reasonable under Article 19(5).

F) PETITIONER/ APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The counsels for the Petitioner / Appellant submitted that:

The externment order issued by the Commissioner of Police violated Article 19(1)(d), which guarantees the freedom to move freely throughout the territory of India. They contended that fixing a residence outside the state (Amritsar) was beyond the jurisdiction of the Commissioner under Section 27(1), rendering the order void ab initio.

Further, they asserted that procedural safeguards were not observed. Singh was not permitted to cross-examine witnesses, nor was he given sufficient notice or disclosure of allegations, violating natural justice principles. They cited State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, AIR 1952 SC 75, to argue that arbitrary procedures violate Article 14.

The petitioner argued that the externment order’s substantive scope and the absence of judicial review made the power draconian. They also argued that the impugned provision lacked reasonable classification and did not satisfy the intelligible differentia test under Article 14, similar to the reasoning in Kathi Raning Rawat v. State of Saurashtra, AIR 1952 SC 123.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The counsels for Respondent submitted that:

The externment provision under Section 27(1) was enacted in public interest, primarily to maintain law and order. The state argued that restrictions under the law were reasonable and proportionate, satisfying the tests under Article 19(5).

They emphasized that externment is preventive, not punitive, and is used in exceptional situations where witnesses refuse to testify due to fear. They argued that Section 27(4) of the Act provided procedural safeguards such as disclosure of general allegations, the right to file a written statement, and the right to be represented by counsel.

They further contended that since Singh voluntarily requested to go to Kalyan, the order must be deemed modified by consent. They argued that the law classified individuals reasonably, based on potential threat to public safety, and this classification was constitutionally valid, echoing Budhan Choudhry v. State of Bihar, AIR 1955 SC 191.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

i) Article 19(1)(d): Guarantees the right to move freely throughout the territory of India.
ii) Article 19(5): Permits reasonable restrictions on movement in the interest of the general public.
iii) Article 14: Guarantees equality before law and prohibits arbitrary classification.
iv) Article 32: Right to constitutional remedies.
v) Section 27(1), City of Bombay Police Act, 1902: Empowers police to extern individuals whose activities threaten public safety.

I) JUDGEMENT

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

i) The Supreme Court held that Section 27(1) of the City of Bombay Police Act does not violate Article 19(1)(d). It reasoned that the restrictions imposed are reasonable and are meant to prevent danger to the community, satisfying the test under Article 19(5).

The Court noted that the procedure laid down in Section 27(4) provided adequate safeguards. Though the petitioner could not cross-examine witnesses, the provision’s object would be defeated if the law demanded strict criminal trial safeguards in preventive actions. The order’s original error in naming Amritsar was cured when Singh voluntarily requested to go to Kalyan, and the Commissioner accepted this request.

b. OBITER DICTA 

i) The Court opined that the reasonableness of a restriction must consider both procedural and substantive aspects. Also, laws designed to protect public order must be interpreted with pragmatism, acknowledging that unusual powers are sometimes necessary in exceptional scenarios.

c. GUIDELINES 

• Externment orders must comply with the spirit of Section 27(1) and mention the appropriate area.

• Procedural safeguards like written notice of general allegations and legal representation are mandatory.

• If the externee accepts a revised location, the externment order may be construed accordingly.

• Courts should interpret restrictions on movement through the lens of public interest and pragmatism, not mere technicalities.

• Authorities should act within jurisdiction and avoid naming locations outside state limits unless lawful.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

This landmark case clarifies the scope and constitutional validity of externment provisions under colonial laws in light of modern constitutional safeguards. The Supreme Court upheld the reasonableness of restrictions under Article 19(5) while reaffirming that laws targeting dangerous elements in society can deviate from standard procedures, provided they offer minimum safeguards. The Court’s practical approach to voluntary compliance by the externee reflects its inclination to balance individual liberty with public interest. This judgment has continued relevance in determining the constitutionality of administrative orders curtailing fundamental rights.

K) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

1. State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, AIR 1952 SC 75 [1]

2. Kathi Raning Rawat v. State of Saurashtra, AIR 1952 SC 123 [2]

3. Budhan Choudhry v. State of Bihar, AIR 1955 SC 191 [3]

b. Important Statutes Referred

1. Article 19(1)(d), Article 19(5), Article 14, Article 32, Article 13(1) of the Constitution of India [4]

2. Section 27(1) and Section 27(4) of the City of Bombay Police Act, 1902 [5]