LexP. L. LAKHANPAL versus UNION OF INDIA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
• A B c D E F G P. L. LAKHANPAL v. UNION OF INDIA April 19, 1966 [AK. SARKAR; C.J., M. HIDAYATULL/IH, R.S. BACHAWAT, J.M. SHELAT AND RAGHUBAR DAYAL, JJ.J Defe.nce of India Rules, 1962 r. 30(1) (b)-Jf ultra vires s. 3(2)(15)' (i) of Defence of India Act-Constitution of India, Art. 352-Proc!a- mation-If to state, satisfaction of Emergency. The petitioner, the editor of a newspaper, was detained u!'der r. 30(l)(b) of the Defence of India Rules, 1962. He filed a petition under Art 32 of the Constitution for a writ of habeas corpus char-. lenging th 0e legality of the detention order on various grounds. Dis- missing the petition, HELD: Rule 30(1) (b) cannot be said to be ultra vires of s. 3(2)(15) (i) of the Defence of India Act for the reason that it does not state that the satisfaction of the authority making the order of deten- tion has to be on grounds appearing to it to be reasonable. The rule requires only that the detaining authority must be satisfied that the detentoon is necessary for the purposes mentioned and that is what the latter part of the section under which it was made also says. This part does not contain any requirement as to satisfaction on reasonable grounds. The rule has clearly been made in terms of the section authorising it. [211 Fl Article 352 of the Constitution does not require the proclama- tion to state the sat:sfaction of the President about the Emergency. The Article requires only a declaration of emergency threatening the security of India by one of the causes mentioned. The words "to that effect" can have no other meaning. A proclamation ceases to have effect only by one of the events mentioned in cl. 2 of Art. 352 of the Constitution. [212 CJ Section 3(2) (15)(iv) of the Defence of India Act and r. 30-A of the Defence of India Rules, does not g;ive a right to make a repre- sentation. Their effect is to provide a review of the detention order by the authorities and in the manner mentioned. Rule 23 of the De- fence of India (Delhi Detenus) Rules, 1964, states that a detenue will be allowed to interview a legal practitioner for the purpose of draft- ing his representation against his detention. [213 C-D]. The fact that newspapers and men connected with them may be dealt with under other provisions of the Act and Rules does not pre- vent detention of such persons under r. 30(1)(b) of the Defence of India Rules. [213 H] The order need not mention the part of India which was to be prejudicially affected by the acts of the detenue. ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 47 of 1966. Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India for the en- H forcement of fundamental rights. The petitioner appeared in person. 209 ~](I IUl6tij srPr. s.c.1" Niren D<', Ac/c/itiona/ Solicitor-General, N. S. Bindra, R. H. Dhebar and B.R.G.K. Achar. for the respondent. R. V. S. Mani. for !he intervener. The Judgment of the Court """ delivered by Sarkar, C.J. The petitioner. Puran Lal Lakhanpal, was arrested and detained uuder cl. ibl ot sub-r. (J) of Ruic 30 of the Defence of India Rules. 1962 by an order passed on December IO, 1965 and directed to be detained in Centr<d Jail. Tehar. New Delhi. The order state,: that: A B "WHEREAS the Central Government is satisfied that c with a view 10 preventing Shri P.L. Lakhanpal. son of late Shri Diwan Chand Sharma from acting in a manner prejudicial to 1he Defence of India and Civil Defence. rublic safety and the maintenance of public order. it is neces- sary that h~ 'hould h~ detainerl: NOW. THEREFORE. . .... the Central D Government hereby <lirects that the said Shri P. L. Lakhanpal be detained." He has moved this Coun under An. 32 of the Constitution hv a petition presented on December 24. 1965 for a writ of habeas cor- pus directing his release. He challenges the legality of the deten- tion order on varieus grounds which we now proceed to consider. The first ground is that r. JO(l)(b) is ultra vires s. 3(2)(15)(i) of the Defence of India Act under which the Rules were made. Sub-s. (!) of s. 3 contains the general power to make rules for certain pur- poses. Sub-section (2) states that the rules made may provide for and many empower any authority to make orders providing for all or any of the following matters. namely: -- E F • • "<15) notwithstanding anything in any other law for the ' time being in force. (j) the apprehens'on and detention in custody of any per- son whom the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.