Report No. 57
6.31. Constitutional aspect of proposed provision.-
In the course of our consideration of this question, we had occasion to examine a small constitutional issue, namely, whether the proposed provision prohibiting the real owner from filing a suit to enforce his right against the benamidar would conflict with the provision in Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution. Under that article, all citizens have the right to acquire, hold and dispose of property. We have come to the conclusion that the proposed section will not be hit by that clause. In this connection, we may point out that Article 19(5) saves a law imposing reasonable restrictions on the exercise of any of the rights conferred by sub-clauses (d), (e) and (f) of clause (1), if the restrictions are in the interest of the general public.
6.32. Public interest requires that unnecessary litigation should be avoided; and if the law enacts provisions designed to achieve such object, it does not hinder the public interest. It advances it. The time of the citizens and of the agencies charged with the administration of justice should be devoted to more fruitful tasks than to the decision of questions arising by reason of the mere use of the name of a person who is not intended to be the owner of the property held in his name, if there is no compelling consideration for such use of the name of another person, we do not see any reason why such a practice should not be restricted. For these reasons, the restriction should be regarded is reasonable within the meaning of Article 19(5).