Lex.HANS MULLER OF NURENBURG versus SUPERINTENDENT, PRESIDENCY JAIL, CALCUTTA AND OTHERS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1955 Shyabuddinsab Mohidin.Jab Akki v. The Gadag-Betgeri Municipal Borough and others Sinha J. 1955 February 23 1284 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1955] meeting of the ~rd August 1954 had. been validly held and that there is no illegality in the election. of the 2nd and 3rd respondents as president and vice-presi- dent respectively. We accordingly affirm the orders of the High Court, though not for the same reasons. The appeal fails ·and is dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed. HANS MULLER OF NURENBURG . tJ. SUPERINTENDENT, PRESIDENCY JAIL, CALCUTTA AND OTHERS. [MuKHERJEA C.J., S. R. DAs, VIVIAN BosE, . BHAGWATI and }AGANNADHADAS JJ.) Constitution of India, Arts. 14, 21 and 22-Entry 9 and entry 10 in Union list of Seventh Schedule to Constitution-Preventive De- tention Act 1950 (Act V of 1950), s. 3(1)(b)-Whether ultra vires Constitution-Foreigners Act 1946 (Act XXXI of 1946), s. 3(2)(c)- Whether ultra vires ,Constitution-Extradition Act 1870 and For- eigners Act, 1946--Distinction between. The petitioner, a West German subject, was placed un<;Ier pre- ventive detention by an order of the West Bengal Government under '· 3( 1) (b) of the Preventive Detention Act 1950 on the ground that he was a foreigner within the meaning of the Foreigners Act 1946 and that it had becoine necessary to make arrangements for his ex- pulsion from India ahd tht;refore he was required to be detained until the issue of an appropriate order from the Central Government. The questions for determination in the case· were :- (i) whether s. 3(1)(b) of the Preventive Detention Act was ultra vires the Constitution inasmuch as it contravenes Arts. 14, 21 and 22 of the Constitution and whether it w:is beyond the ·legislative competence ·of Parliament to enact such a law; ' (ii) whether, in any event, the detention was invalid as .it was made in bad faith. Held that the Impugned portion of the Preventive Detention Act and i. 3(2)(c) of the Foreigners Act on which it is based are not ultra vires the Constitution· inasmuch a:~; ( i) in view of Entry 9 and Entry 10· 0£ the Union list of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, the language of which must be given the widest meaning, the legislative competence of Parlia- ment to deal with the question of preventive detCntion of foreigners · ) .. S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 1285 is clear and this covers not only s. 3(l)(b) of the Preventive Deten· tion Act but also the Foreigners Act, 1946, in so far as it deals with the powers of expulsion and the right of the Central Government to restrict the movements of foreigners in India and prescribe the place of their residence and the ambit of their movements in the land; (ii) the Preventive Detention Act was a comprehensive Act dealing with preventive detention and was framed with the limita- tions of Arts. 21 and 22 in view. Section 3(1)(b) of the Preventive Detention Act was enacted to bring the unrestrained power given by s. 4(1) of the Foreigners Act into line with the provisions of the Constitution; (iii) section 3(1)(b) of the Preventive Detention Act is reason- ably related to the purpose of the Act, namely preventive detention, inasmuch as the· right to expel a foreigner conferred by s. 3(2) of the Foreigners Act on the Central Government and the right to make arrangements for expulsion include the right to make arrangements for preventing any breach or evasion of the order; and the Preven- tive Detention Act confers the power to use the means of preventive detention as one of the methods of achieving this end; (iv) the State Government is competent to make an order of detention under the law in anticipation of an order of expulsion that is about to be made, or which may be made by the Central Govern- ment on the recommendation of the State Government which, though seized with certain powers of Government is not competent to make an order of expulsion itself. Unless ·a State Government has autho- rity to act in anticipation of orders from the Centre it might be too late to act at all; ( v) the impugned section does not offend Art. 14 of the Con- stitution inasmuch as differentiation between foreigner and foreigner as envisaged ins. 2(a) ands. 3(2)(c) of the Foreigners Act 1946 and s. 3(1)(b) of the Preventive Detention Act is based on a reasonable and ration~! classification. There is no individual discrimination, and reasons of State may make it desirable to classify foreigners
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.