ARUP BHUYAN v. STATE OF ASSAM & Anr.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 ss. 3, 10, 10(a)(i), 10(i), 38
- Constitution of India arts. 14, 19, 19(1), 19(1)(c), 19(4), 21
- Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 s. 3(5)
- McCarran Act, 1950
- Prize Competitions Act, 1955
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 153B, 193, 228
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
- Sixteenth Amendment Act, 1963
- Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 s. 3(5)
- TADA Act, 1987 s. 3(5)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 94
Judgment
(Separately concurring as well)
The contradistinction between the rights created by the First Amendment of the American Constitution and Article 19 of the Indian Constitution is the power given to the State to make laws reasonably restricting such freedoms in India. Conversely, in the United States of America, restrictions have been imposed by the Judiciary in instances, as relied upon in Arup Bhuyan and Indra Das, however no such explicit power is available with the Legislature. [Para 15][567-C]
In Arup Bhayan, the Court placed reliance on American decisions in Elfbrandt v. Russel, Clarence Brandenberg v. State of ARUP BHUYAN v. STATE OF ASSAM & ANR. 503 Ohio and United States v. Eugene Frank Robel wherein the doctrine of ‘guilt by association’ has been rejected. The court observed that the abovementioned judgments apply to India too, since the fundamental rights in India are similar to the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution. The abovementioned decisions are in contradistinction to the scenario in question in India. The American decisions primarily involve indictment on the basis of membership of political organizations or incidents of free speech advocating overthrow of the government. However, under Indian law, it is not membership of political organizations etc. or free speech or criticism of the government that is sought to be banned, it is only those organizations which aim to compromise the sovereignty and integrity of India and have been notified to be such and unlawful, whose membership is prohibited. This is in furtherance of the objective of the UAPA, which has been enacted to provide for the more effective prevention of certain unlawful activities of individuals and associations and dealing with terrorist activities and for matters connected therewith. The distinction, therefore, is clear. [Paras 30 and 48][572-F; 579-A-C]
There is “a world of difference” between the American and Indian scenario, so far as, sub serving public interest is concerned. It is this difference which seemed to have escaped the division bench’s attention in Arup Bhyan and Indra Das. Therefore, placing reliance on decisions rendered in a distinct scenario as well as a demonstrably different constitutional position, that too almost singularly, especially in cases which involve considerations of national security and sovereignty, was not justified. [Paras 50 and 52][580-C, F] Arup Bhuyan v. State of Assam (2011) 3 SCC 377 : [2011] 2 SCR 506 and Sri Indra Das v. State of Assam (2011) 3 SCC 380 : [2011] 4 SCR 289 – held not good law. Babulal Parate v. State of Maharashtra [1961] 3 SCR 423 and Madhu Limaye v. Sub-Divisional Magistrate (1970) 3 SCC 746 : [1971] 2 SCR 711 – followed. A B C D E F G H 504 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 8 S.C.R. A B C D E F G H Union of India v.
Naveen Jindal and Another (2004) 2 SCC 510 : [2004] 1 SCR 1038; Hyderabad Asbestos Cement Products and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. (2000) 1 SCC 426 : [1999] 5 Suppl. SCR 155; Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) 5 SCC 1 : [2015] 5 SCR 963; Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. and Others v. Union of India and Others (1985) 1 SCC 641 : [1985] 2 SCR 287; Superintendent, Central Prison v. Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia [1960] 2 SCR 821; Pathumma v. State of Kerala (1978) 2 SCC 1 : [1978] 2 SCR 537; M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987) 1 SCC 395 : [1987] 1 SCR 819; Ashok Kumar Thakur v. Union of India (2008) 6 SCC 1 : [2008] 4 SCR 1; Jayendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra (2009) 7 SCC 104 : [2009] 8 SCR 591 and Ramlila Maidan Incident, In re, (2012) 5 SCC 1 : [2012] 4 SCR 971 – relied on. Kaushal Kishor v. State of U.P. & Ors. 2023 SCC Online 6; Arup Bhuyan v. State of Assam (2015) 12 SCC 702; Dharam Dutt v.
Union of India (2004) 1 SCC 712 : [2003] 6 Suppl. SCR 151; State of Madras v. VG Row [1952] SCR 597; State of Bihar v. Shailabala Devi AIR 1952 SC 329 : [1952] SCR 654; O.K. Ghosh and Anr. v. E.X. Joseph AIR 1963 SC 812 : [1963] Suppl. SCR 789; A.P. Dairy Development Corpn. Federation v. B. Narasimha Reddy (2011) 9 SCC 286 : [2011] 14 SCR 1; Raghubar Dayal Jai Prakash v. Union of India AIR 1962 SC 263 : [1962] 3 SCR 547; Jamaat-E-Islami Hind v. Union of India (1995) 1 SCC 428 : [1994] 6 Suppl. SCR 316; Express Newspapers (Pvt.) Limited and Another v. Union of India and Others [1959] SCR 12; State of Travancore – Cochin and Others v. Bombay Co. Ltd. [1952] SCR 1112; State of Bombay v. R.M.D. [1957] SCR 874; Reliance Chamarbaugwala Petrochemicals Ltd. v. Proprietors of Indian Express Newspapers, Bombay Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. (1988) 4 SCC 592 : [1988] 3 Suppl. SCR 212; R.K. Garg v. Union of India (1981) 4 SCC 675 : [1982] 1 SCR 947; Maneka Gandhi v.
Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248 : [1978] 2 SCR 621 and State of Kerela v. Raneef (2011) 1 SCC 784 : [2011] 1 SCR 590 – referred to. ARUP BHUYAN v. STATE OF ASSAM & ANR. 505 Morey v. Doud 354 US 457 (1957); Secy. of Agriculture v. Central Roig Refining Co. 338 US 604 (1949); Ghani v. Jones (1970) 1 QB 693; Elfbrandt v. Russel 384 U.S. 17 (1966); Clarence Brandenberg v. State of Ohio 395 U.S. 444 (1969);United States v. Eugene Frank Robel 389 U.S. 258 (1967); Clarence Brandenberg v. State of Ohio 395 U.S. 444 (1969); United States v. Eugene Frank Robel 389 U.S. 258 (1967); Scales v. United States 367 US 203 (1960); Noto v. United States 367 US 290 (1960);Communist Party v. Subversive Activities Control Board 367 US 1 (1961); Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath 341 US 123, 174 (1951); Keyishian v. Board of Regents of New York 385 US 589 1966; In Yates v. U.S. 354 US 298 (1957); Whitney v. California 274 US 357 (1926); Gitlow v.
New York 268 US 652 (1925); Terminiello v. Chicago 337 US 1 (1948) and De Jonge v. Oregon 299 US 353 (1936)- referred to. Case Law Reference In the judgment of M.R. SHAH, J. [2011] 1 SCR 590 held not good law [2011] 2 SCR 506 held not good law [1961] 3 SCR 423 [1971] 2 SCR 711 [1960] 2 SCR 821 relied on relied on relied on [2012] 4 SCR 971 referred to [1962] Supp 3 SCR 632 relied on [1987]1 SCR 819 [2008] 4 SCR 1 [1978] 2 SCR 537 referred to relied on referred to Para 1 Para 1 Para 4 Para 4 Para 4.1 Para 4.1 Para 4.2 Para 4.2 Para 4.2 Para 4.2 [2011] 4 SCR 289 held not good law Para 5 [2003] 6 Suppl. SCR 860 referred to [1965] 2 SCR 457 referred to Para 7.2 Para 7.3 A B C D E F G H 506 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 8 S.C.R. A [1983] 1 SCR 1000 [2015] 5 SCR 963 referred to referred to [1962] Suppl. SCR 769 referred to [1952] SCR 654 B [1989] 2 SCR 204 referred to referred to [1963] 1 Suppl. SCR 789 referred to C D E F [1995] 2 SCR 411 [1994] 2 SCR 375 [1973] Suppl.
SCR 1 [1980] 1 SCR 1026 referred to referred to referred to referred to [1996] 10 Suppl. SCR 585 referred to [2014] 9 SCR 283 [1970] 2 SCR 522 [1973] Suppl. SCR 1 relied on relied on relied on In the judgment of SANJAY KAROL, J. (2015) 12 SCC 702 referred to [2011] 2 SCR 506 [2011] 4 SCR 289 held not good law held not good law [2003] 6 Suppl. SCR 151 referred to [1952] SCR 597 [1952] SCR 654 referred to referred to [1963] Suppl. SCR 789 referred to [2015] 5 SCR 963 [2011] 14 SCR 1 [1962] 3 SCR 547 relied on referred to referred to G [1994] 6 Suppl. SCR 316 referred to [1961] 3 SCR 423 [1971] 2 SCR 711 [1985] 2 SCR 287 [2004] 1 SCR 1038 H followed followed relied on relied on Para 7.4 Para 7.5 Para 7.8 Para 7.9 Para 7.10 Para 7.11 Para 7.12 Para 7.13 Para 9.3 Para 9.3 Para 9.3 Para 11.4 Para 12.7 Para 12.9 Para 1 Para 2 Para 2 Para 6 Para 7 Para 8 Para 8 Para 8 Para 10 Para 11 Para 13 Para 16 Para 17 Para 18 Para 19 ARUP BHUYAN v.
STATE OF ASSAM & ANR. 507 [1960] 2 SCR 821 [1978] 2 SCR 537 [1987] 1 SCR 819 [2008] 4 SCR 1 (2009) 8 SCR 591 [2012] 4 SCR 971 [1959] SCR 12 [1952] SCR 1112 [1957] SCR 874 relied on relied on relied on relied on relied on relied on referred to referred to referred to [1988] 3 Suppl. SCR 212 referred to [1982] 1 SCR 947 [1978] 2 SCR 621 [2011] 1 SCR 590 referred to referred to referred to [1999] 5 Suppl. SCR 155 relied on Para 19 Para 19 Para 19 Para 19 Para 19 Para 20 Para 24 Para 24 Para 24 Para 25 Para 26 Para 27 Para 31 Para 49 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 889 of 2007. From the Judgment and Order dated 28.03.2007 of the Designated Court, Assam at Guwahati in TADA Sessions Case No. 13 of 1991. With Review Petition (Criminal) No. 417 of 2011 in Criminal Appeal No. 1383 of 2007, Review Petition (Criminal) No. 426 of 2011 in Criminal Appeal No. 889 of 2007, Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos. 5971, 5964 of 2019, Criminal Appeal No. 1383 of 2007, SLP (Crl.)… CRLMP No.16637 of 2014, and Special Leave Petition Nos. 5643, 6270 of 2019.
Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General, K M Nataraj, A.S.G., Vinay Navare, Sanjay Parikh, R. Basant, Sr. Advs., Ms. Ranjana Narayan, Kanu Agrawal, Rajan Kumar Chourasia, Sandeep Kumar Mahapatra, Navanjay Mahapatra, Ashok Panigarhi, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Gurmeet Singh Makker, Shuvodeep Roy, Deepayan Dutta, Sai Shashank, Jawahar Raja, Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, Karun Sharma, Archit Krishana, Ms. Varsha Sharma, Ms. Moksha Sharma, Haris Beeran, Mushtaq Salim, Azhr Assees, Radha Shyam Jena, Azim H. Laskar, Bikas Kar Gupta, Ms. Debarati Sadhu, Ms. Debanjana Ray Choudhury, Debojyoti A B C D E F G H 508 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 8 S.C.R. A Mukhopadhyay, Abhijit Sengupta, Mohamad Shareef K.P., P. A. Noor Mohamed, Advs. for the appearing parties. The Judgments of the Court were delivered by M. R. SHAH, J.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.