LexP. L. LAKHANPAL versus THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
2S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 1101 neither the Act nor the rules framed thereunder define those departments. If the nomenclature only matt- ·ered, then there is no escape from the conclusion that whatever articles and commodities were pur- chased by the Indian Stores Department or its later substitutes, of whatever magnitude and value, would be within the mischief of the exemption clause in question. But that, in my opinion, was not the in- tention of the framers of the Act. They knew what the activities of the Government through those de- partments were and the exemption was granted only in respect of those functions of the Government, as already indicated. For the aforesaid reasons I would allow these ap- peals, set aside the orders of the Letters Patent Bench and restore the orders passed by the Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court, with costs throughout. BY THE COURT. in accordance with the Judgment of the majority the appeals are dismissed with costs. P. L. LAKHANPAL v. THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR. ls. R. DAS, ACTING C.J., BHAGWATI, }AGANNADHA- DAS, B. P. SINHA and }AFER IMAM JJ.] Constitution of .India, Arts. 13, 21, 22 and 35(c)-/ammu and Kashmir Preventive Detention Act, 2011 (Act VI of 2011), s. 3(1) (a )(i) and s. 8(1) Proviscr-Constitution (Application to /am mu and Kashmi,.) 01·der, 1954-Detention order under the provisions of ss. 3 (J)(a)(i) and 8(1) Proviso of the Act-Whether violates fundamental .-ights guaranteed under Arts. 21 and 22 of the Constitution-Non- supply of grounds of detention to Detenu-Whether violates his funda- mental right-Addition of clause (c) to Art. 35 of the Constitution- Effect of. The petitioner was detained in Kothibagh sub-jail in Srinagar by the order of Jammu and Kashmir Government under the provi- sions of s. 3(1)(a) (i) of the Jammu and Kashmir Preventive Deten- tion Act, 2011. · 1955 The UniMi of l•dia v. Tiu CatRmucia Tax Ojfiar, Wis B•ngal and othtTJ Sinha J 1955 D1ctmher 20. 1955 P. L. Lakhanpal v. The Stat1 of Jammu and Kashmir 1102 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [19551 The petitioner challenged the order of detention on the grounds,. inter alia, (i) that it cncroacheJ on his fundamental right to life an<l personal liberty guaranteed to hi1n under 1\rt. 21 of the Consti· tution as extended to the State of Jam1nu and Kash1nir, (ii) that it \'i_olated his fundamental right guaranteed to him under clause (5) to Art. 22 cf the Constitution as extended to Jammu and Kashmir State inas:nuch as the petitioner \Vas not supplied \Vith the grounds on 'vhich the order of detention \Vas based. It \Vas contended that s. S( 1) Proviso, of Ja111mu and l<.ashmir Preventive Detention Act, 2011, under \vhich the grounds of detention were not supplied to hin1, \Vas unconstitutional as being inconsistent with Arts. 21 and 22 of: the Constitution and thus void to the extent of that inconsist- ency in Yie,;;,.· of the provisions of ,\rt. 13 of the Constitution. Held (overruling the contention) that s. ti(l) Proviso is not unconstitutional in vie\V of the provisions of Constitution (Applica- tic:1 t"J j:.J.111111u and Kashrnir) Order, 195-l- which supersedes the Con· stitution (Jan1mu and Kashmir) ()rder, 1950, and of clause (..::) which has been .:id<l..::<l to Art. 35 of the Consti.tution. The effect of the modification of Art. 35 by the addition of chtu!>C ( c) thereto is that su...:h of the provisions of the 1\ct <lS are in- consistent with Part III of the Constitution shall he valid until the cxpiration of fiye years fron1 the commencem~nt of the Order. ORIGINAL 1955. J UR!SD!CT!ON : Petition No. 396 of Under Article 32 of the Constitution for a writ m the nature of Habeas Corpus. R. Patnaik, for the petitioner. M. C. Setaivad, Attorney-General of India, C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-Genera! of India, Raja faswant Singh, Advocatc-G~ncrn!, fammu and Kashmir (P. A. Mehta and R. H. Dheb11r, with them) for the respon- dent. M. C. Seta/wad, Attorney-General of fodia (P. A. Mehta and R. H. Dhebar, with him) for the Intervener. 1955. December 20. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SI':IH ! --This application for a writ of habeas corpi1s is directed against the State of Jammu and Kashmir which has by its order dated the 4th Octo- ber, 1955, directed the detention of the petitioner under section 3 of the J ammu and Kashmir Preven- 2S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 11
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.