Where Loss Of Life Or Human Suffering, Centre And State Govt Empowered To Put Restrictions: MP Hc On Ban On Inter...
Key Legal Principles
Right to Life (Article 21 of the Constitution)
Protection of life is paramount. If there is a risk to life or public health, reasonable restrictions can be imposed by the State.
Centre–State Powers
Under the Constitutional scheme, both Centre and State Governments have concurrent powers in matters relating to public order, health, and safety.
Thus, in cases of epidemics, disasters, or activities that endanger human life, restrictions or bans are legally permissible.
Doctrine of Reasonable Restrictions
Fundamental rights such as freedom of trade, profession, or movement (Articles 19(1)(d), 19(1)(g)) are not absolute.
They are subject to restrictions in the interest of public health, order, and morality.
Case Laws Supporting the Principle
State of Punjab v. Mohinder Singh Chawla (1997)
The Supreme Court held that the right to health and medical care is an integral part of the right to life under Article 21.
This empowers governments to take necessary steps to protect health and life.
Vincent Panikurlangara v. Union of India (1987)
The Court held that maintenance and improvement of public health is a constitutional obligation of the State.
Therefore, governments can regulate or restrict activities affecting public health.
Municipal Council, Ratlam v. Vardhichand (1980)
The Supreme Court emphasized that public authorities cannot ignore situations leading to human suffering, and they must act to prevent threats to life.
Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v. State of West Bengal (1996)
It was held that the government has a duty to provide adequate medical facilities, reinforcing its power to restrict harmful activities to save lives.
Madhya Pradesh High Court’s Observation (Context)
The Court clarified that when restrictions (like a ban) are imposed with the object of preventing loss of life or reducing human suffering, such restrictions are justified and within the constitutional framework.
It upheld the principle that public safety overrides individual inconvenience in exceptional circumstances.
Summary Table
| Aspect | Principle | Supporting Case |
|---|---|---|
| Right to Life | Life and health are protected under Article 21 | Mohinder Singh Chawla (1997) |
| Public Health Duty | State has constitutional duty to protect health | Vincent Panikurlangara (1987) |
| Human Suffering | Authorities must act to prevent suffering | Ratlam v. Vardhichand (1980) |
| Medical Facilities | Duty to ensure medical care and safety | Paschim Banga (1996) |
| Restrictions Justified | Centre & State can restrict for saving lives | MP High Court ruling |
✅ In short: The MP High Court reiterated that protection of life and health is paramount, and both Centre and State are constitutionally empowered to impose restrictions—even bans—whenever necessary to prevent loss of life or human suffering.
RELATED Blog
0 comments