May it please the Hon’ble Court,
I, Shubham, a 3rd-year LLB student, bearing Roll No. 78, appearing as the counsel for the
petitioner, V.G. Row, humbly submit before this Hon’ble Court that the impugned action of the
State of Madras, declaring the People’s Education Society as unlawful, is an arbitrary and
unconstitutional violation of Article 19(1)(c) of the Indian Constitution.
The right to form associations is a fundamental pillar of democracy, and any restriction on this
right must pass the strict test of reasonableness under Article 19(4). The present restriction,
imposed without due process and without a fair opportunity to be heard, not only violates
constitutional principles but also contradicts India’s international obligations under the
ICCPR and UDHR, which recognize freedom of association as a core human right.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Case No. 90 of 1951
Decided On: 31.03.1952
State of Madras and Ors. vs. V.G. Row (31.03.1952 - SC) 1952 insc 19
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
M. Patanjali Sastri, C.J., M.C. Mahajan, B.K. Mukherjea, Sudhi Ranjan Das and N.
Chandrasekhara Aiyar, JJ.
Subject: Constitution
Mentioned IN
Relevant Section:
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - ARTICLE 19(1)(c); CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - ARTICLE 19(1)(b),
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - ARTICLE 132
State of Madras and Ors. vs. V.G. Row (31.03.1952 – SC
On August 10, 1942, the British declared the Congress Working Committee, the All India
Congress Committee and the four Provincial Congress Committees as “unlawful associations”
under the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1908.
The colonial law, a precursor to many later-year laws meant to prosecute terrorist and unlawful
activities, allowed the arrest of members of an ‘unlawful association’, so declared by the
provincial government.
Less than a decade later, in March 1950, the same law was invoked by the Congress government
in Madras to declare the People’s Education Society, a cultural society, as an “unlawful
association” for being a “danger to public peace” and “carrying on propaganda on behalf of the
Communist Party”.
The society’s secretary, V G Row – a veteran trade unionist and co-founder of the renowned Row
& Reddy, a Madras-based law firm that continues to champion the rights of workers —
challenged the constitutionality of the law, first in the Madras High Court and later in the
Supreme Court, and argued that the ban infringed upon the fundamental rights conferred on
him by the new Constitution.
On March 31, 1952, a four-judge bench of the Supreme Court led by then Chief Justice of India
M Patanjali Sastri struck down the law.
The law to declare unlawful associations has appeared in several draconian avatars since the
ruling — from the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, to the Prevention of
Terrorism Act of 2002 or the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – but the VG Row ruling
set a landmark precedent that a law must only impose “reasonable restrictions”. While doing
so, the court introduced a test to determine if a law excessively limited citizens’ freedoms.
The court said that “the nature of the right alleged to have been infringed, the underlying
purpose of the restrictions imposed, the extent and urgency of the evil sought to be remedied
thereby, the disproportion of the imposition, the prevailing conditions at the time, should all
enter into the judicial verdict” while determining reasonableness.
Story continues below this ad
The ‘test’ that the court laid out would in later years evolve into the “structured proportionality
test” which is now used to test legislation that encroach on fundamental rights. This test
essentially requires the state to show that its action, restricting a fundamental right, is
proportional to its goal. This is a guard against arbitrary action that could completely wipe out a
right in the garb of pursuing even a “legitimate state interest”.
“Many of the early constitutional cases that the Supreme Court heard came from Madras,
particularly from Row & Reddy,” says 88-year NGR Prasad, the managing partner at the
firm.
In 2019, Vombatkere challenged the constitutional validity of the 2019 Aadhaar Ordinance
and Regulations, and in 2021, he challenged another colonial law, Section 124A of the
Indian Penal Code, that criminalises sedition.
. This is a petn. under Article 226, Const. Ind. for the issue of a writ of certiorari for calling the records &
quashing the order of the State of Madras in G. O. No. Ms. 1517 Public General dated 10-3-1950 declaring
under Section 16, Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908, the People's Education Society as an unlawful
assocn. The petnr. is the General Secretary of the People's Education Society registered in November
1947 under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (XXI [21] of 1860), & is also a barrister-at-law & an
advocate of this Court & the Supreme Ct.
2. The objects of the Society as stated in the affidavit of the petnr. are among others
"(a) to encourage, promote, diffuse, & popularise useful knowledge in all science & more specially Social
Science; (b) to encourage, promote, diffuse & popularise political education among people; (c) to
encourage, promote or popularise the study & understanding of all social & political problems & bring
about social & political reforms; & (d) to promote, encourage & popularise are, literature & drama."
The notfn. by the resp. the State of Madras, dated 10-3-1950 under Section 16, Criminal Law Amendment
Act, 1908, declaring the Society an unlawful assocn. is in the following terms :
"Whereas in the opinion of the State Govt. the Assocn. known as the People's Education Society, Madras,
has for its object interference with the administration of the law & the maintenance of law & order, &
constitutes a danger to the public peace;
Now, therefore, His Excellency the Governor of Madras, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 16,
Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908 (Central Act XIV [14] of 1908) hereby declares the said Assocn. to be
an unlawful assocn. within the meaning of the said Act."
(Sd.) K. RAMUNNI MENON ,
Chief Secretary."
Cases Referred:
Y.R. Parpia vs. R.M.D. Chamarbagwalla MANU/MH/0067/1948; A.K. Gopalan vs. The State of Madras
MANU/SC/0012/1950; In Re: Bisabathuni Ramalingayya MANU/TN/0174/1950; N.B. Khare vs. The State of
Delhi MANU/SC/0004/1950
Authorities Referred:
Halsbury's Laws of England, Edn. 2, Vol. 6 p. 392; Strouds Judicial Dictionary; Willis'
Constitutional Law of the United States, p. 477; Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes, Edn. 9 at
p. 139
: MANU/TN/0016/1951
Issues Raised
The issues raised in State of Madras vs V.G. Row were:
• Constitutionality of Section 15(2)(b) and Section 16 of the Indian Criminal Law
Amendment Act, 1908: Whether the provisions allowing the government to declare
an association unlawful violated the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article
19(1)(c) of the Indian Constitution.
• Reasonableness of Restrictions: Whether the restrictions imposed under the Act
were reasonable and met the test prescribed by Article 19(4).
Relevant Legal Provisions
• Article 19(1)(c) of the Indian Constitution: Guarantees citizens the fundamental
right to form associations or unions.
• Article 19(4): Allows the State to impose reasonable restrictions on this right in the
interest of public order, morality, or the sovereignty and integrity of India.
• Section 15(2)(b) of the Indian Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908: Empowers the
State to declare an association unlawful via notification if it:
o Constitutes a danger to public peace.
o Interferes with the maintenance of public order or the administration of law.
• Section 16 of the Act: Requires the notification to specify grounds and allows a
reasonable period for making representations to the State Government.
• Section 16A: Mandates the State Government to submit the matter to an Advisory
Board after representations are made, which can recommend cancelling the
notification if it finds no sufficient cause for the declaration.
Arguments by the Petitioner (V.G. Row)
• Violation of Fundamental Rights: The declaration violated the right to form
associations under Article 19(1)(c).
• Unreasonableness of Restrictions: The restrictions imposed by the Act were not
reasonable within the meaning of Article 19(4). The absence of judicial inquiry into
the factual grounds for the declaration made the restriction arbitrary and unfair.
• Procedural Deficiency: No official copy of the notification was served to the
People’s Education Society or its members, depriving them of an opportunity to
challenge the declaration effectively.
1. Violation of Fundamental Right to Form Associations (Article 19(1)(c))
A. The Right to Form Associations is a Core Democratic Freedom
• Article 19(1)(c) guarantees the fundamental right to form associations or unions,
which is essential for a free and democratic society.
• The People’s Education Society was a lawful association engaged in educational
activities, and no evidence was provided to show that it disturbed public order.
• By declaring the society unlawful, the State has directly violated this fundamental
right without any reasonable justification.
B. The Restriction is an Unreasonable and Arbitrary Exercise of Power
• While Article 19(4) allows reasonable restrictions in the interests of public order or
morality, the restriction imposed by the Madras government is arbitrary and excessive.
• Test of proportionality: The government must show that the restriction was necessary
and the least intrusive way to achieve its goal.
• The absolute ban on the association was a disproportionate measure, as there were
less restrictive alternatives (e.g., warnings, specific prohibitions on certain activities).
2. Failure of the State to Justify the "Reasonableness" of the Restriction (Article 19(4))
A. Lack of Justification or Evidence for the Ban
• The burden of proof is on the State to establish that the restriction is reasonable and in
public interest.
• The State of Madras failed to provide concrete evidence that the People’s Education
Society was a threat to public order.
• A mere executive declaration, without an independent judicial review, violates
constitutional safeguards.
B. Vague and Overbroad Nature of the Law (Section 15(2)(b) of the Criminal Law
Amendment Act, 1908)
• Section 15(2)(b) grants sweeping powers to the executive to declare an association
unlawful without any safeguards for judicial scrutiny.
• Doctrine of arbitrariness: Any law that gives the government unchecked power without
procedural safeguards is unconstitutional.
• Precedents (Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras, 1950): The Supreme Court had earlier
ruled that restrictions on fundamental rights must be narrowly tailored and should not
give excessive discretion to the State.
3. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice
A. Denial of the Right to be Heard (Audi Alteram Partem)
• The People’s Education Society was never given a chance to present its case before
being banned.
• Principle of natural justice (audi alteram partem – "let the other side be heard") is a
fundamental requirement under constitutional law.
• The State’s unilateral action without fair hearing or due process makes the restriction
legally untenable.
4. Unchecked Executive Power – Threat to Democracy
A. Absence of Judicial Review Encourages Misuse of Power
• The executive cannot have unchecked authority to determine which associations are
unlawful.
• If this law is upheld, it will set a dangerous precedent where governments can
suppress dissenting voices by branding associations as unlawful.
• Doctrine of Separation of Powers: The power to restrict fundamental rights must be
subject to judicial review, preventing arbitrary misuse by the executive.
B. Comparative Constitutional Analysis – Protection of Association Rights
• U.S. Supreme Court (Schneider v. New Jersey, 1939): Struck down restrictions on
peaceful associations as unconstitutional.
• European Court of Human Rights: Recognizes the right to association as a
fundamental aspect of democracy, allowing only narrowly defined restrictions.
5. Precedent-Setting Role of the Judiciary – Supreme Court as Guardian of the Constitution
• The Supreme Court has a duty to uphold fundamental rights and prevent their erosion
by excessive state action.
• Justice Patanjali Sastri’s opinion in this case laid the foundation for judicial review of
legislative restrictions on fundamental rights.
• If the Court allows such an arbitrary restriction, it weakens the fundamental structure
of the Constitution and may encourage further government overreach.
1. Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras (1950 AIR 124, 1950 SCR 594)
Facts of the Case:
• The Government of Madras banned the circulation of the journal "Cross Roads",
published by Romesh Thapar, under the Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act,
1949.
• The petitioner challenged this ban, arguing that it violated Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of
speech and expression).
Judgment:
• The Supreme Court struck down the ban, holding that restrictions on fundamental
rights must be reasonable and directly related to public order.
• It narrowly interpreted "public order", stating that only restrictions directly affecting
the security of the state could be justified.
2. State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (1951 AIR 226, 1951 SCR 525)
Facts of the Case:
• The Government of Madras reserved seats in educational institutions for different
communities, which was challenged by Champakam Dorairajan, a Brahmin woman
who was denied admission.
• She argued that the reservation violated Article 15(1) (prohibition of discrimination on
grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth).
Judgment:
• The Supreme Court struck down the government order, ruling that fundamental
rights cannot be overridden by directive principles of state policy.
• The Court held that any state action infringing fundamental rights must be subject to
strict scrutiny.
In light of the arguments advanced, it is humbly submitted that the impugned action of the
State of Madras, declaring the People’s Education Society as unlawful, is unconstitutional,
arbitrary, and violative of fundamental rights enshrined under Article 19(1)(c) of the Indian
Constitution.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently upheld the principle that restrictions on
fundamental rights must be reasonable and proportionate. However, in the present case, the
State has failed to justify its action as a reasonable restriction under Article 19(4). The
restriction imposed:
1. Lacks procedural safeguards, leading to executive overreach and misuse of power.
2. Fails the test of reasonableness, as laid down in Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras
(1950).
3. Violates India’s international obligations under the ICCPR and UDHR, which protect
the right to freedom of association.
