Sunteți pe pagina 1din 6

CONTENTION 3 - THAT

THE ACTION OF CHANDIGARH POLICE IN SEALING AND SEIZURE OF

BILAL MASID SHOP HAS NOT VIOLATED ANY FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT.

Fundamental rights
Fundamental Rights' is a charter of rights contained in part 3 of the Constitution of India. It
guarantees civil liberties such that all Indians can lead their lives in peace and harmony as
citizens of India. Speaking about the importance of fundamental rights in historic case of
maneka Gandhi vs union of india1 bhagwati , j observed : these fundamental rights represent the
basic values cherished by the people of this country since the vedic times and they are calculated
to protect the dignity of the individual and create conditions in which every human being can
develop his personality to the fullest extent. They weave a `pattern of guarantee on the basic
structure of human rights , and impose negative obligations on the state not to encroach on
individual liberty in its various dimensions.2
The six fundamental rights recognised by the constitution are:
1. Right to equality(articles 14-18)
2. Right to freedom(articles 19-22)
3. Right against exploitation(articles 23-24)
4. Right to freedom of religion(articles 25-28)
5. Cultural and educational rights(articles 29-30)
6. Right to constitutional remedies(articles 32-35)3
Striking a difference between individual liberty and social need
If people were given complete and absolute liberty without any social control the result would be
ruin. Law is a scheme of social control, so that when we are concerned with,we are concerned
only with the question of how much liberty is best........... 4.

AIR 1978 SC AT P. 619

. pandey,j.n.,constitutional law of india,pg no.52

. pandey,j.n.,constitutional law of india,pg no.52

.wills constitutional law and the united states,pp.477-82.

Hence the question arises to how to make a balance between the conflicting interests of
individual.and of the society. the Indian constitution attempts to do it by enumerating what are
fundamental rights and by setting limits within which they can be curtailedthe constitution
permits reasonable restrictions to be imposed on individual liberties in the interest of society.and
this had been made clear in a.k. gopalan vs state of madras5.
Article 19 of the constitution gives a list of individual liberties and prescribes in the various
clauses the restrains may be placed upon them by law so that they may not conflict with public
welfare or general morality.
The police caught the bilal masid dealing in bitcoins,which was in contravention of foreign trade
and exchange laws and various RBI regulations and it also amounts to an offence under
prevention of money laundering act . police arrested bilal masid and during investigation his
shop was also sealed and special team also ceased all electronic machinery including
computers ,external hard drives, usb sticks,and other documents.
The appelent has claimed that this sealing and seizure has violated his the fundamental right .the
right that has been claimed to be violated is right of profession, occupation,trade or business.
Freedom of profession, occupation, trade or business
Article 19(1)(g) guarantees that all citizens shall have the right to practice any profession or to
carry on any occupation, trade or business. However this right is not unqualified. It can be
restricted and regulated by authority of law. Thus the state can under clause (6) of article 19
make any law1. Imposing reasonable restriction on this right in the interest of public.
2. Prescribing professional or technical or technical qualifications necessary for practicing
any profession or carrying on any occupation, trade, business.
3. Enabling the state to carry on any trade or business to the exclusion of citizens wholly or
partially.
Grounds of restrictions restrictions should be

Reasonable

.AIR 1950 SC 27

In the interest of general public6

In manohar lal vs state of punjab 7 court held the restriction of closure of shops for a day
reasonable as it would be beneficial for the health of the workers.
In bijoy cotton mills vs state of ajmer8 the minimum wages act that empowers the govt. To fix
minimum wages to be given to the labourers in a particular industry was challenged as violative
of art. 19(1)(g). The court held that act is reasonable as is in public interest.
In cooverji vs excise commisioner9 law which created a monopoly to sell liquor in favour of few
persons was held valid.S
Hence this right is not absolute and in the instant case the accused was involved in illegal
transaction so it was reasonable to seal the shop in order to stop further transaction and to collect
evidence for trial.
Moreover police is authorised to collect or seize items from the place of search according to
section 102 of CR. P. C. Which says that: Any police officer may seize any property which may
be alleged or suspected to have been stolen, or which may be found under circumstances, which
create suspicion of the Commission of any offence.
It was held in zafar ali vs tausik hasan10 that it is pendency of the investigation that gives
jurisdiction to police, to seize property and when investigation is dropped the property seized
must be returned to the person from whom it was seized. Question of ownership is irrelevant in
such cases.
It is submitted that none of the fundamental rights of Bilal have been violated by the actions of
the Police with Special Team in-charge of Economic Offences. Part III Article 19(1) (g) of the
Indian Constitution guarantees to all citizens the right to practice any profession or to carry on
any occupation, trade or business. The petitioner Bilal was a currency broker who dealt in
Bitcoins also. On the first look it might seem that Bilals right to carry on trade of his choice was
being violated by sealing his shop and all other goods the rights might have been seeming to
infringe however the fundamental rights not being absolute in nature are subjected to some
6

. pandey,j.n.,constitutional law of india,pg no.200

.AIR 1961 SC 418.

AIR 1955 SC 33

AIR 1954 SC 220

10

1971 CR.L.J. 986 (all)

restrictions and so is the case with article 19(1)(g). In the instant case, the Petitioner Bilal
received 5000 bitcoins from Ronnie and the same was exchanged for Indian Currency. The
Bitcoins received by Ronnie was for an act of Abduction of a girl as proved earlier and for
immorally trafficking a girl for the purpose of prostitution and slavery as according to the
charges framed under FIR No. 920 of 2012. The money exchanged is the same money which has
been received for an illegal act which accounts for an offence of Money Laundering. And as has
been held in the case of Obayya Pujary v. Member-Secretary, Karnataka State Pollution Control
Board, Bangalore11 that the right to freedom as enshrined in Article 19 of the Constitution,
though Fundamental, is not an Absolute Right and is always subject to reasonable restrictions
which may be imposed in the larger interest of Public Welfare. The transaction of Bitcoins also
violates the Notification issued under Section 3 by the Reserve Bank of India 12 which talks about
the permitted categories for payment from a person residing outside India. The present
transaction does not fall in any of the categories specified in the Notification. Police only took
measures to stop an illegal transaction. Hence the restriction imposed is reasonable and hence no
violation of Fundamental right has taken place.

11

12

AIR 1999(3) KARLJ 651

FEMA Regulation on Section 3- Notification No. FEMA/16/RB-2000 dated the 3 rd May, 2000 reproduced in
Appendix II

S-ar putea să vă placă și