Skip to main content

Himmat Lal K. Shah v. Commissioner of Police by GPT 4.0

 The case of Himmat Lal K. Shah v. Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad & Others, decided by the Supreme Court of India in 1973, is an important judgement in the context of freedom of assembly and expression in India.


The case arose from an incident where the Commissioner of Police in Ahmedabad, Gujarat, denied permission to hold a public meeting in a public park. The refusal was based on a notification issued under Section 33(1)(o) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, which allowed the Commissioner to refuse permission for public assemblies to maintain public order.

Legal Issues:

The key legal issue was whether the notification issued under the Bombay Police Act, infringing upon the right to hold public meetings, was constitutionally valid, especially in the context of Article 19(1)(b) of the Constitution of India which guarantees the freedom of assembly.

Supreme Court Judgment:

  • The Supreme Court held that the notification was unconstitutional as it vested excessive power in the police authorities to control public meetings, thereby infringing upon the fundamental right of citizens to assemble peaceably and without arms.

  • The Court emphasised that the freedom of assembly is a crucial aspect of a democratic system and is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(3) of the Constitution. However, the notification in question was not a reasonable restriction but an arbitrary use of power.

  • It was observed that any law or action that allows the administrative authority to impose restrictions on the exercise of these freedoms without guidelines or principles is unconstitutional.


  • Upholding Democratic Rights: The judgement reinforced the importance of fundamental democratic rights, particularly the right to peaceful assembly.

  • Limiting Arbitrary Power: The case set a precedent in limiting the arbitrary powers of the police or administrative authorities in regulating public meetings and assemblies.

  • Balancing Freedom and Order: It established the principle that while the state has the right to impose reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order, these restrictions must not be arbitrary or excessive.


Himmat Lal K. Shah v. Commissioner of Police was a landmark judgment in protecting the democratic rights of citizens and served as a check against the arbitrary use of power by authorities in regulating public assemblies. The case reaffirmed the balance between maintaining public order and upholding the constitutional freedoms of assembly and expression.


Popular posts from this blog

20 more interesting and significant legal cases in the history of the UK by GPT4.0

  Here are 20 more interesting and significant legal cases in the history of the UK, which have had a considerable impact on various areas of law: 1. Airedale NHS Trust v Bland (1993): Addressed the legality of withdrawing life-sustaining treatment from a patient in a persistent vegetative state. 2. Ridge v Baldwin (1964): A significant case in administrative law, involving the improper dismissal of a Chief Constable. 3. Pepper v Hart (1993): Established that when interpreting statutes, reference can be made to the Parliament's debates for clarity. 4. Woolmington v DPP (1935): A fundamental case in criminal law, establishing the principle that the prosecution must prove the defendant's guilt (presumption of innocence). 5. Caparo Industries plc v Dickman (1990): Important for establishing the test for a duty of care in negligence law. 6. Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary (2003): Key case in employment law, particularly on the issue of sex discrimination.

"Woolmington v DPP (1935)" by GPT4.0

  "Woolmington v DPP (1935)" is a landmark case in English criminal law, particularly concerning the principle of the burden of proof in criminal trials. Here's a detailed summary: Background - Date: 1935 - Parties: Woolmington (Appellant) vs. Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent) - Context: The case revolved around a murder charge against Reginald Woolmington. Facts - Incident: Woolmington was charged with the murder of his wife. Initially, it was presumed that he needed to prove he had not murdered her. - Initial Trial: Woolmington was found guilty at the initial trial, where the burden was effectively placed on him to prove his innocence. Legal Proceedings - Appeal: The case was appealed up to the House of Lords, challenging the conviction on the grounds of misdirection regarding the burden of proof. Judgment - Decision: The House of Lords overturned Woolmington’s conviction. - Reasoning:   - The Lords established the principle famously known as the “Golden Thre

"Airedale NHS Trust v Bland (1993)" by GPT4.0

  "Airedale NHS Trust v Bland (1993)" is a landmark case in English law, particularly significant in the area of medical ethics and the law regarding end-of-life care. This case dealt with the legal and ethical issues surrounding the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment. Here's a detailed summary: Background - Date: 1993 - Parties: Airedale NHS Trust (Plaintiff) vs. Anthony Bland (Defendant) - Context: The case involved Anthony Bland, a victim of the Hillsborough disaster who was left in a persistent vegetative state (PVS). Facts - Incident: Anthony Bland had been in PVS for three years following the Hillsborough disaster, with no prospect of recovery. - Medical Condition: He was being kept alive artificially by feeding and hydration tubes. Legal Proceedings - Request: The Airedale NHS Trust sought a declaration that it would be lawful to discontinue life-sustaining treatment, including the withdrawal of artificial nutrition and hydration. - Legal Questions: The key le