A.K. GOPALAN versus THE STATE OF MADRAS.

Citation: [1950] 1 S.C.R. 88 · Decided: 19-05-1950 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HARILAL JEKISUNDAS KANIA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

19~0 
May, 19. 
88 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1950) 
A.K.GOPALAN 
ti. 
THE STATE OF MADRAS. 
UNION OF INDIA : INTERVENER. 
[SHRl 
HAluLAL 
KANIA 
C.J., 
SAIYID 
FAZL 
ALI, 
l'ATANJALI SASTRI, MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN, 
MuKHERJF:A and S. R. DAs JJ.J 
Preventive Detention Act (IV of 1950), ss. 3, 7, 10-14.-VaJid-
ity-Constitution 
of 
India, 
1950, Arts. 13, 19 
to 22, 32-Law 
relating :o preventive detention-Whether infringes Fundamental 
Right as to freedom of movement-Whether subject to judicial 
review a. to reasonableness under Art. 19 (5)-Scope of Art. 19-
Right of free movement and Right to personal liberty, nature and 
incidents of-Art. 221 whether complete code as to preventive detro· 
tion-Scope and 
applicability 
of Art. 21-"Law," "procedure 
established ·by law," meanings of-Whether incluile rules of natural 
justice-Construction of Art. 21-American decisions on °d«e pro.-
cess of U.W,n value of-Omission to 
provide objective standard for 
satisfaction of authorities, to pravirl< for oral hearing or leading of 
evidence, to fix maximum· period of detention, and to specify "cir-
cumstances" and "classes of cases" where period of detention may 
be extended over 3 months, prohibiting detenu 
from 
disclosing 
grounds of detention-Validity of law-Construction of Constitution 
-Reference to· debates and Report of Drafting Committee-
Permissibility. 
The 
Petitioner 
who 
was 
detained 
under 
the 
Preventive 
Detention Act (Act IV of 1950) applied under Art. 32 of the Con-
stitution for a writ of habeas corpus and for his release 
from 
detention, on the ground that the said Act contravened the pro-
viSions of Arts. 13, 19, 21 and 22 of the Constitution and was 
consequently ultra vires and that his detention was therefore 
illegal: 
Held, 
per KANIA C. )., PATA1'JAL1 SAsTIU, 
Mu1<HERJEA and 
DAs JJ. (FAZL Au and MAHAJAN JJ. dissenting)-that the Preven-
tive Detention Act, 1950, with the exception of Sec. 14 thereof 
did not contravene any of the Articles of the Constitution and 
even though Sec. 14 was ultra vires inasmuch as it contravened 
the provisions of Art. 22(5) of the Constitution,·'" this section was 
severable from the remaining sections of the, ~t, the invalidity 
of Sec. 14 did not affect the validity of the Act as a whole, and 
the detentiori of the petitioner was not illegal. 
FAZL Au and MAHAJAN JJ.-Scction 12 of the Act was also 
ultra, vires, · and since it contravened the very provision in the 
·1 
J 
• 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
89 
Constitution under which the· Parliament derived its competence 
19j0 
to enact the law, the detention was illegal. 
Held, by the Full Court (KANIA C. J., FAZL Au, l'ATANJALI 
A.K. Gopalan 
SAsTRI, MAHAJAN, MuKHERJEA and DAs JJ.)-Section 14 of the 
v. 
Preventive Detention Act, 
1950, contravenes 
the 
provisions of 
The Stall 
Art~ 
22 ( 5) of 
the 
Constitution 
in 
so far as it prohibits 
a 
person detained trom disclosing to the Court the grounds on 
which a detention order has been made or the representation 
made by him against the order of detention, and is to that extent 
ultra vires and void. 
Per KANIA C. J., PATANJALI SAsTR1, MAHAJAN, 
MuKHERJEA 
and DAs JJ. (FAZL Au J. dissenting).-Article 19 of the Consti-
tution has no application to a law which relates 
directly 
to 
preventive detention even though as a result of an order 'bf 
detention the rights referred to in sub-els. (a) to (e) and (g) in gen-
eral, and sub-cl. (d) in particular, of d. (I) of Art. 19 may be res-
tricted or abridged ; and .the constitutional validity of _a law relat-
ing to such detention cannot therefore, be judged in the 
light 
of the test prescribed in cl. ( 5) of the said Article. 
DAs J.-Article 19 ( 1) postulates a legal capacity to exercise 
the rights guaranteed by it and if a citizen loses the . freedom 
of his person by reason of lawful detention as a result of a con-
viction for an offence or otherwise he cannot claim the rights 
under sub-els. (a) to (e) and (g) of Art. 19 (I); likewise if a citizen's 
property is compulsorily acquired under Art. 31, he cannot claim 
the right under sub-cl. (f) of Art. 19 ( l) with respect to that pro-
perty. In short the rights under sub-els. (a) to (e) and (g) ~nd 
where lawful detention begins and therefore the validity of a 
preventive detention Act cannot be judged by Art. 19 (5). 
MAHAJAN J.-Whatever bethe precise scope of Art. 19 (I) (d) 
and Art. 19 (5) the provisions of Art. 19 (5) do not apply to a 
law relating to 
prevent

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.