GODAVARI PARULEKAR versus STATE OF BOMBAY AND OTHERS

Citation: [1953] 1 S.C.R. 210 · Decided: 05-12-1952 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. PATANJALI SASTRI · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

1952 
Dec. 5. 
~10 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1953] 
GODAVARI PARULEKAR 
• 
v . 
STATE OF BOMBAY AND OTHERS. 
[PATANJALI SASTRI C.J., MUKHERJEA, CHANDRA-
SEKHARA AIYAR, VIVIAN BOSE and 
GHULAM HASAN JJ.] 
Preventive Detention Act, 1950, a§ amended by the Preventive 
Detention (Second Amendment) Act, 1952, s. 11-A-Wiwther discri-
minatory-Validity-Constitution of India, 1950, Arts. 14, 22 (7) 
(b)-"Unless a shorter period is specified in the order", meaning of. 
Section 11-A which was inserted in the Preventive Detention 
Act of 1950 by the Preventive Detention (Second Amendment) Act 
1952, p!ovided that the maximum period for which any perso~ 
m-ay be detained in pursuance of any detention order which has 
been confirmed under section 11 shall be twelve months :from the 
date of detention. But sub-s. (2) qualified this by dividing deten-
tions into two classes : (a) those in which the detentWn order 
W..s confirmed before the 30th September, 1952, and (b) those in 
~hich the confirmation V.'as after that date, and it provided that 
in the former case, unless a shorter period was specified in the 
order, the detention shall continue either till the 1st of April, 1953, 
or for twelve months from the date of detention, \vbichever expires 
later: 
Held, (i) that' the section did not contravene art. 14 or art. 22 
(7) (b) of the Constitution merely because it introduced a fresh 
classification which divided detentions into those before the Act 
and those thereafter, as the classification was a reasonable one. 
The section did not involve any discrimination between persons 
whose detentions were confirmed b"1ore the 30th September, 1952, 
merely because, as a result of the section, in the case of some per~ 
sons the period of detention may be longer and in the case of 
others it may be shorter; 
Shamrao Parulekar v. The District 1J1agistrate, Thana and 
Others ( [1952] S.C.R. 683) followed. 
(ii) that a detention order made on the 16th October, 1951, 
which did not specify any period of detention was not a case where· 
"a shorter period was specified in the order 
11 within the meaning 
of s. 11-A (2) merely because the detention would have expired. 
either on the 31st March, 1952, or on 30th September, 1952, but 
for the Amendment Act. 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTIOl!: Petition No. 399 of 1952. 
Petition under article 32 of the Constitution of India 
for a writ iu the nature of habeas corpus. 
.... -
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
211 
Godavari Parulekar, the petitioner, in person. 
M. 0. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India, (G.N. 
Joshi and P. A. Mehta, with him) for the respon!\ent. 
1952 
Godavari 
Parulekar 
v. 
1952. 
December 5. 
was delivered by 
The Judgment of the Court Stats of Bombay 
and Others. 
BOSE J.-This is a habeas corpus petition under 
Bose J. 
article 32 of the Constitution. 
The petitioner was detained on the 16th of 
October, 1951, under the 
Preventive 'Detention 
Act of 1950 as amended in 1951. 
Her detention was 
actually longer than this but the earlier detentions 
were under a different set of orders which are not 
relevant to the present matter. The present detention 
. is based on an order of the District Magistrate, 
Thana, and merely says that the petitiop.er be detain-
ed, without specifying any period. 
The order of 
confirmation was passed on the 4th of January, 1952, 
and the"re again no period was specified. 
The 
petitioner's case is that as no period was specified in 
the order her period of detention expired on the 31st 
of March, 1952, because of the amending Act of 
1951 ; or at the outside on the 30th of September, 
1952, because of Act XXXIV of 1952 which effected 
a further amendment. 
The reply on behalf of the State of Bombay is that 
the Preventive Detention Act of 1950 was again • 
amended by Act LXI of 1952 and th~t the effect of 
.'-
this amendment was to carry the petitioner's deten-
tion on to the 31st of March, 1953, because of section 
-
11-A which was added to the original Act of 1950. 
The petitioner counters by saying that the new Act 
does not apply to cases in which the order of deten-
tion is not silent about its duration and so section 
11-A does not serve to extend the period of her 
detention. 
She relies on the following portion of 
section 11-A (2) : 
" ... every detention order which has been confirmed 
under section 11 before the commencement of the 
Preventive Detention (Second l\mendment) Act, 
'2L! 
8UPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1953] 
1952 
1952, shall, unless a shor
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.