Void for vagueness
Posted: Sat Jul 21, 2012 6:38 pm
After posting this post at http://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php ... 75#p171651 discussing the use of the word "use" in Arms Act 1959, I was searching related judgements.
According to a five judge bench of the Supreme Court -
Now just apply your mind to find out the provisions in Arms Act 1959 that are vague and thus unconstitutional.
According to a five judge bench of the Supreme Court -
Reference: 1994 SCC (3) 569 - SC, 1971 AIR 481 - SC, 1995 CriLJ 2608 - AP HCIt is the basic principle of legal jurisprudence that an enactment is void for vagueness if its prohibitions are not clearly defined. Vague laws offend several important values. It is insisted or emphasised that laws should give the person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited, so that he may act accordingly. Vague laws may trap the innocent by not providing fair warning. Such a law impermissibly delegates basic policy matters to policemen and also judges for resolution on an ad hoc and subjective basis, with the attendant dangers of arbitrary and discriminatory application. More so uncertain and undefined words deployed inevitably lead citizens to "steer far wider of the unlawful zone ... than if the boundaries of the forbidden areas were clearly marked".
Now just apply your mind to find out the provisions in Arms Act 1959 that are vague and thus unconstitutional.