Indian Criminal Law Amendment Act (XIV of 1908) as amended by Indian Criminal Law Amendment (Madras) Act, 1950, ss. 15 (2) (b), 16-Law empowering State to declare associations illegal by notification-No provision for judicial inquiry or for service of notification on association or office-bearers-Validity of law-Unreasonable restriction on right to form associations-Constitution of India, art. 19 (1) (c) (4). 

Section 15 (2) (b) of the Indian Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908, is amended by the Indian Criminal Law Amendment (Madras) Act, 1950, included within the definition of an "unlawful association" an association which has been declared by the State by notification in the Official Gazette to be unlawful on the ground (to be specified in the notification) that such association ( i) constitutes a danger to the public peace, or (ii) has interfered or interferes with the maintenance of public order or has such interference for its object, or (iii) has interfered or interferes with the administration of the law, or has such interference for its object." Section 16 of the Act as amended provided that a notification under s. 15 (2) (b) shall (i) specify the ground on which it is issued and such other particulars, if any, as may have ~ bearing on the necessity therefor and (ii) fix a reasonable period .for any office. bearer or member of the association or any other person interested to make a representation to the State Government in respect of the issue of the notification. Under s. 16A the Government was required after the expiry of the time fixed in the notification for making representation to place the matter before an Advisory Board and to cancel the notification if the Board finds that there was no sufficient cause for the issue of such notification. There was however no provision for adequate communication of the notification to the association and its members or office bearers. It was conceded that the test under s. 15(2)(b) as amended was, as it was under s. 16 as it stood before the amendment, a subjective one and the factual existence or otherwise of the grounds was not a justiciable issue and the question was whether s. 15(2)(b) was unconstitutional and void :