Tag: SUPREME COURT’S RULING IN STATE OF MADRAS VS V.G. ROW

The Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in State of Madras vs V.G. Row (1952) established the “test of reasonableness” for laws restricting fundamental rights. This ruling set a precedent for judicial review, ensuring that restrictions on civil liberties must be fair, just, and not excessive. State of Madras vs V.G. Row Case Background: Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1950 empowered the government to ban associations considered prejudicial to public order. The Madras government banned the People’s Education Society in 1950 under this law. G. Row, a member of the banned society, challenged the law, arguing it violated: Article 19(1)(c) – Right to form associations. Article 19(4) – Permits reasonable restrictions on this right in the interest of public order. Supreme Court’s Ruling (1952): The SC struck down the law as unconstitutional. Key Findings: The law gave excessive discretionary powers to the government, making it arbitrary. Restrictions must be fair, just, and not excessive relative to the objective they serve. Framework for Reasonableness Test: Nature of the right being infringed. Purpose and extent of the restriction. Proportionality to the issue addressed. Socio-political conditions prevailing at the time. Significance of the Judgment: Laid the foundation for the “reasonableness test”, which evolved into the proportionality test used today. Impacted laws like UAPA, TADA, and POTA, ensuring they do not infringe on civil liberties arbitrarily. Key Takeaways from the Case Judicial Review: Ensures laws and government actions are constitutionally valid and not arbitrary. Protection of Fundamental Rights: Establishes that even fundamental rights can be restricted only through reasonable, justified, and proportionate measures. Recent Application of the Reasonableness Test Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020): SC ruled that internet shutdowns and restrictions on movement/communication must meet the proportionality test. Key Ruling: Indefinite internet suspension violates Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech) and Article 19(1)(g) (right to practice any profession) unless justified under Article 19(2). Landmark Cases on Balancing Rights and Restrictions Case Year Key Issue Impact Kesavananda Bharati vs. Kerala 1973 Basic Structure Doctrine Established the basic structure doctrine Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India 1978 Right to Life under Article 21 Expanded the scope of Article 21—fair, just, and reasonable restrictions. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India 2015 Section 66A of IT Act (Freedom of Speech) Struck down Section 66A as vague and overbroad. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India 2017 Right to Privacy as a Fundamental Right Recognized Privacy as a fundamental right. Constitutional Provisions: Article 19(1): Guarantees freedoms like speech, assembly, movement, association, etc. Article 19(2): Allows reasonable restrictions on these freedoms for: Sovereignty and integrity of India State security Public order, morality, health Contempt of court, defamation, etc.

Tag: SUPREME COURT’S RULING IN STATE OF MADRAS VS V.G. ROW

SUPREME COURT’S RULING IN STATE OF MADRAS VS V.G. ROW

Let's Crack
APSC Together

Quick Links

Newsletter

Subscribe for Updates

Let's Crack APSC Together

Quick Links

Newsletter

Subscribe for Updates

Let's Crack
APSC Together