LexJAGDEV SINGH versus STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
• A JAGDEV SINGH v. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR August 14, 1967 197 8 [K. N. WANCHOO, C. J., R. S. BACHAWAT, V. RAMASWAMJ, G. K. MITTER AND K. S. HEGDE, JJ.] Defence of India Rules 1962, rr, 30(1) (b) and 30A-Detention orders passed in March 1965 and 1'e11iewed from time· to time under s. 30A but without observing rules of natural iustice-After Supreme Court decidina review was quasi-iudicial function fresh revieto made in February 196'1 upon giving detenu OJJPOrtunity for hearing-Whe- e ther such rell'iew effective in continuing original detention ordef'- Whether fresh detention order can be passed on the same facts to cure a defect. The petitioners were detained under r. 30(1) (b) of the Defence of India Rules, 1962, under orders passed by the State Government in March 1965. Their detention was continued from time to time after review under r. 30A. One review was made in February 196'1 when D the scope of such a review was govern¢ by the judgment of this Court in Sadhu Singh v. De!lii Administraiion f19661 1 S.C.R. 243 to the effect that such review did not require a judicial .,pproach to the question of continuance of detention. Accordingly, at the re- view in F~bruary 1967, no opportunity was given to the petitioners to represent their cases and their detention was continued for a further period of six months. Thereafter. by its judgment in the case of P. L .. Lakhanpal v. The Union of India. [19671 3 S.C.R. 114 this E Court overruled the decision in Sadhu Singh's case and held that the function of review under r. 30A was quasi-judicial and .that in exercising it, the rules of natural justice had to be complied with. In view of. this judgment the respondent held another review in April 196'1, when notice was given ta the petitioners and they were given a hearing, Thereafter an order was passed in each case on Apltil 27, '1967, by which the State Government directed the con- tinuance of the detention orders for a further period. In the mem- F time the present petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution were filed on March 20, 1967 based on the judgment of this Court in Lakhanpal's case. · It was contended on behalf of the respondent State that as the review made in Apt1il 1967 was ·m accordance with the view taken in Lakhanpal'• case. the continuance of the detention thereafter was justified; that the State Government had power to pass a fresh G order of detention on the same. facts and even if the present peti- tions were to be allowed, it should be made clear that the State Government had such power and that the decision of this Court in the case of ·Autar Singh v. The State of Jammu and Kashmir (de- cided on June 9, 1967), was not correct. HELD: (i) The writ petitions 111ust be allowed and the petitioners released. B In the present cases the orders were passed in March 1965 and should have been reviewed after every six months in the manner explained in Lakhlmpal's case. That admittedly was not done upto February 196'1, though a number of reviews were made in between. <;onsequently order\! of 'detention passed in March 1965 felJ after .Silt monthA ontl t.h~re were no orders to continue thereafter. When 198 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1968] l S,C.R, therefore the State Government ordered the continuance of deten- A tion orders upon the review on AptUll 'J:/, 1967 in accordance With the procedure indicated in Lakhanpal's case, there were no orders to be continued because in-between the reviews '*ere not proper and the detention had become illegal (201 C-D]. A. K. Gopalan v. The Government of India, (1966] 2 S.C.R. 427, distinguished. Although r. 30A (9) only says that the Government shall decide whether the detention order should be continued or cancelled, that B does not mean that ilf the Government omits to make a review un- der r. 30A within six months the detention order will still continue and the detenu continue to be detained thereunder. The provision for review in r. 30A us designed to protect the personal liberty e>f the citizen and ds a mandatory provision; if it is not complied with and the Government omits to review the detention order within six months, the order must fall and· the detenu must be released. c r200 E-Gl. (ii) A fresh order of detention can he passed on the same facts, provided it is not mala fide, if for any reason the previous order of detention or its continuance is not legal on account of some techni- cal or other
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.