Fundamental Right-Infringement of Enactment imposing restrictions on freedom of speech Constitutional validity-Test- "In the interest of public order". Meaning of Doctrine of severability - Applicability - Constitution of India, Arts. 19(1) (4), 19(3) - U.P. Special Powers Act, 1932 (U.P. XIV of 1932) s. 3.

Section 3 of the U.P. Special Powers Act, 1932 (XIV of 1932), provided as follows:-

"Whoever, by word, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations, or otherwise, instigates, expressly or by implication, any person ог class of persons not to pay or to defer payment of any liability, and whoever does any act, with intent or knowing it to be likely that any words, signs or visible representations containing such instigation shall thereby be communicated directly or indirectly to any person or class of persons, in any manner whatsoever, shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to six months, or with fine, extending ding to Rs. 250, ог with both."

The appellant, who was prosecuted under the section for delivering speeches instigating cultivators not to pay enhanced irrigation rates to the Government, applied to the High Court for a writ of habeas corpus on the ground, amongst others, that the said section was inconsistent with Art. 19(1) (a) of the Constitution and as such void. The High Court decided in favour of the appellant and he was released. The State appealed to this Court and the question for determination was whether the impugned section embodied reasonable restrictions in the interests of public order and was thus protected by Art. 19(2) of the Constitution.