Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Pramod Mutalik, the leader of Sri Ram Sene, filed a criminal writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging orders passed by the District Magistrates of South Goa and North Goa banning his entry into the State of Goa. The petitioner contended that he had visited Goa several times previously for peaceful social activities and temple visits, and no criminal complaints or proceedings were pending against him in Goa. In August 2014, news emerged that the Goa government would ban his entry, and a Tiatr (Konkani drama) titled 'Akantwadi Goent Naka' was advertised as being based on 'Mutalik', which the petitioner believed maligned his image. The petitioner asserted that his organization had not resorted to any illegal or unconstitutional means. The court heard arguments from the petitioner's counsel, Mr. Nagesh Takbhate, and the Public Prosecutor, Mr. S.R. Rivankar. The court examined the orders and found that they were passed under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, without affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and without recording any subjective satisfaction that his presence was likely to cause a disturbance or that the orders were necessary for maintaining public order. The court held that the right to move freely throughout India and to reside in any part of India under Article 19(1)(d) and (e) of the Constitution are fundamental rights, and any restriction must be reasonable and procedurally fair. The court quashed the ban orders, allowed the petition, and directed that the petitioner be permitted to enter Goa subject to his maintaining law and order. The court also made the rule absolute.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Right to Freedom of Movement - Article 19(1)(d) and (e) of the Constitution of India - The petitioner, a social activist and leader of Sri Ram Sene, challenged orders banning his entry into Goa. The court held that the right to move freely and reside in any part of India is a fundamental right, and any restriction must be reasonable and procedurally fair. The ban orders were quashed as they were passed without hearing the petitioner and without recording subjective satisfaction. (Paras 1-10) B) Criminal Procedure - Externment Orders - Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - The District Magistrates passed orders under Section 144 CrPC to prevent the petitioner's entry into Goa. The court found that the orders did not comply with the requirements of Section 144, as there was no material to show that the petitioner's presence was likely to cause disturbance or that the orders were necessary for maintaining public order. The orders were set aside. (Paras 3-10) C) Administrative Law - Natural Justice - Opportunity of Hearing - The court emphasized that before passing any order that restricts a person's fundamental rights, the principles of natural justice require that the person be given an opportunity of hearing. Since the petitioner was not heard before the ban orders were issued, the orders were violative of natural justice and liable to be quashed. (Paras 5-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the orders banning the entry of the petitioner into the State of Goa are valid and sustainable in law, particularly when passed without affording an opportunity of hearing and without recording subjective satisfaction as required under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The orders passed by the respondents banning the entry of the petitioner in the State of Goa are quashed and set aside. The petitioner is permitted to enter the State of Goa, subject to his maintaining law and order. Rule is made absolute.
Law Points
- Right to move freely throughout India
- Right to reside and settle in any part of India
- Natural justice principles
- Opportunity of hearing
- Subjective satisfaction
- Section 144 CrPC
- Article 226 Constitution of India
