PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES 335
A question was asked as to what was the necessity for introducing three new heads. The necessity has arisen out of certain judgments which have been delivered by the Supreme Court as well as by the Provincial High Courts. I would like to refer in this connection to the judgments of the Supreme Court in Ramesh Thapar’s case and in Brij Bhushan’s case. These are the two judgments of the Supreme Court. Then I come to the judgments of the State High Courts.
The following judgments of the Punjab High Court may be taken into consideration:
Master Tara Singh’s case.
Amarnath Bali versus the State of Punjab.
There are two judgments of the Patna and Madras High Courts :
Shilabala Devi versus the Chief Secretary of Bihar.
Bynes versus the State of Madras.
In Ramesh Thapper’s case what was involved was the validity of the Madras Maintenance of Public Order, 1949. Brij Bhushan’s case involved the validity of the East Punjab Public Safety Act, 1949. Master Tara Singh’s case involved the validity of sections 124A and 153 A of the Indian Penal Code. Amarnath Bali’s case involved the validity of section 4 of the Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act of 1931. Shilabala Devi’s case also involved the validity of section 4 of the Press Act and the same was involved in the case of Bynes versus Madras State.
All these cases have resulted in the decision that they are void laws, that is to say, in view of the provisions contained in clause (2) of article 19, the courts have held that all these Acts, however valid they might have been before the Constitution came into existence, are bad laws now, because they are inconsistent with the Fundamental Rights.
What I want to ask the House to consider is, what is the effect of these decisions of the Supreme Court and the various High Courts in the States ? In order to give the House a very clear idea I can read many of the sections of the Acts which have been declared to be null and void but in view of the