MAKHAN SINGH TARSIKKA versus THE STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [1952] 1 S.C.R. 368 · Decided: 10-12-1951 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. PATANJALI SASTRI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

1952 
Dec. 10. 
368 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1952] 
MAKHAN SINGH TARSIKKA 
v. 
THE STATE OF PUNJAB 
(PATANJALI 
SAS TRI 
c. 
J ., 
MEHR 
CHAND 
MAHAJAN, 
' 
MUKERJEA, 
DAs 
and 
Cl:IANDRASEKHARA 
AIYAR JJ.] 
Preventive Detention Act (IV of 1950 as amended in 1951), 
ss. 3(i), 9, 11, 12-0rder of detention fixing period of detention in 
initia~ or~er itself before .refe1·ence to (1.dvisory Board-Legalt:ty-
Deprtvat1on of personal liberty-Duty to follo1v procedure stnctly. 
Whatever n1ight be the position under the Preventive Deten-
tion Act of 19j0 before it \Vas amended i11 1951, under the Act 
as :unended in 1951, the 
Govern1nent should determine what the 
period of 
detention should be only after the Advisory 
Board to 
which the case is 
referred reports that the detention 
is justified. 
Fixing of the period of detention in the initial order itself is 
contrary to the schen1e of the Act and cannot be supported. It 
cannot be 
treated as 
::i mere surplusage as it 
would tend to 
prejudice a fair consideration of the dctenu's case by the Advi-
sory Board, though he would have to be 
released 
forthwith if 
the Advisory Board reports that there is 
no sufficient cause for 
detention. 
' 
Before a person is deprived of his personal 
liberty the pro-
cedure established by law must be strictly followed and must 
not be departed from to the disadvantage of the person affected, 
ORIGINAL Juruso1c1'10N. 
Petition 
No. 308 of 1951. 
Application 
under 
article 32 
of the 
C':onstitution for 
a writ in the nature of habeas corpus praying for the 
release of the petitioner from detention. 
H. J. Umrigar (amicus curiae), for the petitioner. 
S. M. Sikri, Advocate-General of the Punjab, 
(findra 
Lal, with him) for the respondent. 
1951. 
December 10. 
The Judgment of the 
Court 
•- • 
was delivered by 
PATANJALI 
SASTRI c. J.-This is 
a petition under 
article 32 of the Constitution praying for the release 
of the petitioner from his alleged unlawful detention. 
We accepted the petition and, at the conclusion of the 
hearing, ordered the petitioner to be released. We 
now proceed to give the reasons for our order. 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
369 
The petitioner was arrested 
and detained under an 
order dated 
1st March, 
1950, made by the 
District 
Magistrate, Amritsar, under section 3(1) of the Pre-
ventive Detention Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 
"the Act") and the grounds of detention were com-
municated to the petitioner as required 
by section 7 
()f the 
Act 
on 15th March, 1950. The petitioner 
challenged the validity of the order on various grounds, 
but, while the petition was pending 
after this 
Court 
issued a rule nisi to the respondent, the petitioner was 
served on 6th August with 
another detention order 
<lated 30th July, 1951, purporting to be made by the 
Governor of Punjab under sub-section (1) of section 3 
and section 4 of the Act as amended by the Preventive 
Detention (Amendment) Act, 1951, and he was scrv-
t:d with fresh grounds 0£ detention on 16th August, 1951. 
:Thereupon the petitioner filed a supplementary petition 
:impugning the validity of the said order on the ground, 
inter alia, 
that it directed 
the 
detention of the 
petitioner up to 31st March, 1952, the date on which 
1:he Act itself was to expire and that this was contrary 
to the provisions of the Act as amended. 
On behalf 
of 
the 
respondent, the Advocate-General of Punjab 
urged that the said order was not intended to be a 
fresh order of detention but was passed only with a 
view to limiting the period of detention till 31st March, 
1952, as it had been held in some cases that an order 
of detention for an indefinite period was bad. 
The 
-0rder runs as follows:-
WHEREAS the Governor of Punjab is statisfied with 
respect to the person known as Ma~han Singh Tarsikka, 
son of Gujjar Singh, Jat, of Tarsikka, Police Station 
Jandiala, Amritsar District, that with a view to pre-
venting him from acting in a manner prejudicial to 
the security of the State, it is necessarry to make the 
following order : 
Now, 
THEREFORE, 
m 
exercise 
of 
the 
powers 
conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3 and section -4 
of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 (Act IV of 
1950), 
as 
amended 
by 
the Preventive 
Detention 
(Amendment) Aot, 1951 (Act IV of 1951), the Governor 
1951 
Mak_han Singh 
Tarsik.k.a 
v. 
The State of 
Punjab. 
Patanjali 
S11stri C. f. 
1951 
Makhan Singh 
Tarsikk• 
v. 
The State of 
Punjali. 
Patanjali 
Sastr
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.