Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Shakuntala Karamveer Sarsath, a beautician by occupation, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India alleging that the respondent police officials, particularly Inspector Atul Mohite of Kandivali Police Station, repeatedly summoned her to the police station and threatened her, thereby preventing her from carrying on her beauty parlor business. She contended that this amounted to a violation of her fundamental right to practice any profession or carry on any occupation, trade or business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The respondents, including the State of Maharashtra, did not file any affidavit in reply to controvert the allegations. The court, after hearing the petitioner's counsel and the Additional Public Prosecutor, noted that the police had no justification for such interference. The court held that the actions of the police were arbitrary and violative of the petitioner's fundamental rights. The court allowed the petition, directed the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner's business, and imposed costs of Rs. 25,000 on the respondents, payable to the petitioner within four weeks.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Right to Practice Profession - Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India - Police Harassment - Petitioner, a beautician, alleged that police officials repeatedly summoned her to the police station and threatened her, preventing her from carrying on her occupation - Court held that such actions by police violate the fundamental right to practice any profession under Article 19(1)(g) and directed the police not to interfere with her business - Held that the police must act within the bounds of law and cannot harass citizens without justification (Paras 1-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the police respondents violated the petitioner's fundamental right to practice her profession as a beautician under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India by repeatedly summoning her to the police station and threatening her.
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petition, directed the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner's business, and imposed costs of Rs. 25,000 on the respondents, payable to the petitioner within four weeks.
Law Points
- Right to practice profession under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India
- Police harassment
- Fundamental rights
- Writ jurisdiction under Article 226
Case Details
2023 LawText (BOM) (09) 71
Criminal Writ Petition No. 5127 of 2022
A.S. Gadkari, Sharmila U. Deshmukh
Mr. Ankush Dhokale i/b. Ms. Anita Marbhal for Petitioner, Mrs. M.H. Mhatre, A.P.P. for Respondent-State
Shakuntala Karamveer Sarsath @ Shakuntala Karamveer Manaat
Atul Mohite, Deputy Commissioner of Police Zone 11, Commissioner of Police Mumbai, State of Maharashtra
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India alleging violation of fundamental right to practice profession.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought a declaration that the respondents' actions violated her right under Article 19(1)(g) and a direction to the respondents not to interfere with her business.
Filing Reason
Petitioner alleged that police officials repeatedly summoned her to the police station and threatened her, preventing her from carrying on her occupation as a beautician.
Issues
Whether the police respondents violated the petitioner's fundamental right to practice her profession under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the police repeatedly summoned her and threatened her, thereby preventing her from carrying on her beauty parlor business, violating her fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g).
Respondents did not file any affidavit in reply to controvert the allegations.
Ratio Decidendi
Police officials cannot arbitrarily interfere with a citizen's right to practice any profession or carry on any occupation, trade or business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. Such interference without legal justification amounts to a violation of fundamental rights.
Judgment Excerpts
Petitioner has invoked extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for alleged violation of her fundamental right to practice the profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business as contemplated under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India, by the Respondents.
The Respondents have not filed any affidavit in reply to controvert the allegations made by the Petitioner.
In view of the above, the Petition is allowed.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 5127 of 2022 before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. The court issued rule and with consent of parties, taken up for final hearing. The respondents did not file any affidavit in reply. The court heard the petitioner's counsel and the Additional Public Prosecutor and delivered judgment on 25 September 2023.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 19(1)(g), Article 226
