Given the date (1946) and subject matter (Foreigners Act, 1946), it's highly unlikely there's a single, landmark "case" titled "Section 5 in The Foreigners Act, 1946" decided on November 23, 1946. Section 5 itself is the legal provision. It's more likely the query is about the Act itself, or perhaps a very early application of it. I will provide a summary based on the Act itself and its general purpose at its inception.

Short Summary

The Foreigners Act, 1946, was enacted to regulate the entry, presence, and departure of foreigners in India. Section 5 of the Act empowers the Central Government to make provisions, either generally or with respect to all foreigners or any specified class or description of foreigner, for prohibiting, regulating, or restricting their entry into India, or their departure therefrom, or their presence or continued presence therein. The Act was a response to the security concerns and administrative challenges posed by the presence of foreigners, particularly during the post-World War II period.

Facts

Following World War II, India faced an influx of foreigners, leading to concerns about national security, economic stability, and social order. The existing laws were deemed inadequate to effectively manage the presence and activities of foreigners. The Foreigners Act, 1946, was thus enacted to provide the government with broad powers to control and regulate foreigners within the country. Section 5 is a key provision granting the government significant discretionary authority.

Issues

The primary issue addressed by the Act and Section 5 is the extent of the Central Government's power to regulate the entry, stay, and departure of foreigners in India, balancing national security and administrative efficiency with principles of international law and individual rights. Specific issues arising under Section 5 involve the scope of permissible restrictions, the procedural safeguards required, and the potential for arbitrary exercise of power.

Petitioner's Arguments

(Hypothetical, as this is about the Act itself, not a specific case challenging it in 1946): Potential arguments against the Act/Section 5 could center on the lack of due process, the potential for discriminatory application, and the infringement of fundamental rights (had those been as developed as they are now). Petitioners might argue that the broad discretionary powers granted to the government are susceptible to abuse and violate principles of natural justice.

Respondent's Arguments

(Hypothetical, representing the government's position): The government would likely argue that the Act and Section 5 are essential for maintaining national security, public order, and economic stability. The power to regulate foreigners is an inherent attribute of sovereignty, and the government must have the necessary tools to protect its citizens and interests. The restrictions imposed are reasonable and necessary in the circumstances.

Court's Reasoning

(Hypothetical, reflecting likely judicial interpretation at the time): Given the prevailing legal and political context in 1946, a court would likely uphold the validity of the Act and Section 5, emphasizing the importance of national security and the government's prerogative to regulate foreign nationals. The court might acknowledge the potential for abuse but would likely defer to the government's judgment in matters of national security and foreign policy.

Conclusion

The Foreigners Act, 1946, including Section 5, provides the Central Government with broad powers to regulate the entry, presence, and departure of foreigners in India. While specific challenges to the Act may arise, the underlying principle of government authority to control foreign nationals has generally been upheld, subject to evolving interpretations of fundamental rights and due process over time.