LexMOHAMMAD AFZAL KHAN versus STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 63 There is nothing in the affidavits filed by the res- pondent showing that there was any particular circum- stance or reason for which the declarations could not have been made earlier than June 30, 1956, when they were actually made. For reasons stated above the detention of the petitioners became illegal and they may well complain of having been deprived of their liberty otherwise than in accordance with procedure established by the Act, which embodies the funda- mental right guaranteed under Art. 22(5) of the Con- stitution. In the premises the petitioners are entitled to the relief they pray for. We accordingly allow both the petitions and direct the petitioners to be released forthwith. Applications allowed. MOHAMMAD AFZAL KHAN v. STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR (S. R. DAS C.J., BHAGWATI, VENKATARAMA AYYAP.., B. P. SINHA and S. K. DAs JJ.) Preventive Detention-Decision by Government to continue such detention-If m1ut be communicated to the detem1e within three months of the Order of detention-/ammu and Kashmir Preventive Detention Act (IV of Sambat 2011), s. 14. Section 14 of the Jammu and Kashmir Preventive Detention Act does not in terms provide for the making of a formal order and there is no scope for the contention that the decision of the Government thereunder that a detention order should be continued must be communicated to the detenue concerned within three months of his detention. Achhar Singh v. The State of the Punjab, Petition No. 359 of 1951, decided on October 22, 1951, applied. Consequently, where, as in the instant ca5e, the Government was satisfied that the activities of the detenue were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and he should be continued in detention under s. 14 of the Act, such detention could not be challenged on the ground that no order under that section had been made or communicated to him within three months of his detention. 5-75 S.C. India/59 1956 Abdul Jahar Bil# v. Stat• •f Jamm11 & Kashmir Das.C.J. 1956 Moham..,.f Afzal Khan v. Stau of Jammu & Koshmw 64 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1957) OruGINAL Jurus!lICTION : Petition No. 181 of 1956. Under Article 32 of the Constitution for a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus. T. R. Bhasin, Amicus Curiae for the petitioner. M. C. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India, Porus A. Mehta and R. H. Dhebar, for the respondent. 1956. November 13. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DAs C.J.-This is a petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India praying for an order that the petitioner's detention be declared illegal and that he be set at liberty. The facts are shortly as follows : On June 30, 1954, the petitioner was arrested in pursuance of an order of detention made on the same day under the Jammu and Kashmir Preventive Deten- tion Act No. 4 of (Sambat) 2011. On July 1, 1954, the grounds on which the order had been made were com- municated to the petitioner. On July 12. 1954, the petitioner submitted his representation to the Govern- ment. Not having heard anything further in the matter, the petitioner made an application to the High Court of J ammu and Kashmir under s, 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It appears that the Govern- ment had .reviewed the case of the petitioner under sub-s. (2) of s, 14 in consultation with a person nomi- nated for the purpose on August 23, 1954, and was satisfied that he should continue to be detained. Accordingly during the pendency of the habeas corpus petition before the High Court the Government on December 23, 1954, made an order under s. 14 conti- nuing the detention of the petitioner. Thereafter the petitioner moved the Vacation Judge of this Court under Art. 32. The learned Vacation Judge was not satisfied that there was any prima facie ground for interference on the assumption that the Jammu and Kashmir Preventive Detention Act was valid. As, however, the constitutionality of that Act was challenged the learned Judge directed a Rule to issue. On September 9, 1955, however, the petitioner, alleg- ing that a certain decision had been made by the S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 65 Jammu and Kashmir High Court which covered his case, asked for permission to withdraw the petition, which was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. In the meantime and thereafter the petitioner's case was reviewed by the Government and orders extending his
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.