PURANLAL LAKHANPAL versus UNION OF INDIA

Citation: [1958] 1 S.C.R. 460 · Decided: 17-09-1957 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: NATWARLAL HARILAL BHAGWATI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

1951 
Septtmber 11. 
460 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1958] 
PURANLAL LAKHANPAL 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA 
(BHAGWATI, JAFER IMAM, s. K. DAS, J. L. KAPUR 
and A. K. SARKAR JJ.) 
Preventive Detention-Order continuing such detention beyond 
three months-Validity-Opinion of Advisory Board, if a pre-requisite 
-'Such detention', meaning of-Constitution of India, Art. 22 (4)(a) 
-Preventive Detention Act, 1950 (Act IV ofl960) as amended by the 
amending Act of 1951 (No. of 1951), s. 11 (I) 
The appellant was arrested under s. 3 of the Preventive 
Detention Act, 1950 (IV of 1950) as amended by the amending Act 
of 1951. The grounds of his detention were communicated to him 
as required by s. 7 of the Act and his case was thereafter put up 
before the Advisory Board constituted under s. 8 of the Act. The 
Board reported that there was sufficient reason for his detention 
and thereupon the Central Government acting under s. 11(1) of the 
Act confirmed the order of detention and directed that such deten-
tion should continue for a period of twelve months from the date 
of detention. The appellant challenged the validity of this order 
by an application to the Punjab High Court under Art. 226 of the 
Constitution for a writ 
of habeas corpus and contended 
that 
sub-s. (I) of s.11 of the Act was constitutionally invalid as 
it 
contravened the provision of Art. 22(4) (a) of the Constitution. The 
High Court found against him. The same point was canvassed in 
appeal to this Court and it was contended that the expression 
'such detention' occurring in sub-cl. (a) of cl. (4) of Art. 22 referred 
to detention for a period longer than three months mentioned in 
cl. (4) of the Article ands. 11 (!)of the Act, in so far as it permit-
ted detention for more than three months without 
a• specific 
report from the Advisory Board that there was sufficient cause 
for detention for more than three months, was ultra vires. It was 
contended on behalf of the Union of India that the expression 
'such detentiop.' referred to 'preventive detention~ occurring in 
the first line of cl. ( 4) of Art. 22 and what an Advisory Board 
contemplated by sub-cl. (a) of that clause was intended to do was 
only to give its opinion as to whether there was suJlicient cause 
for the detention itself and not as to the P,eriod of detention. 
Held (per Bilagwati, Jafer Imam, S. K. Das and J. L. 
Kapur J. J., Sarkar J. dissenting). The contention advanced on 
behalf of the respondent was correct and the appeal must fail. The 
expression 'sucn detention' in Art. 22 (4) (a) of the Constitution 
refers 
to prevemive detention and not to any period for which 
suc;1 detention 3aou1tl continue and s. 11 (;) of the Preventive 
Detention Act do'"' not contravene the provision of Act. 22 (4)(a) 
of the Constitution. 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
461 
The true scope and effect of cl. (4) of Art. 22 must be judged 
in the light of the entire scheme envisaged by Art. 22 and so 
understood, it becomes clear that the Constitution could not have 
intended that while the determination of the necessity of preven-
tive detention should be left to the Executive, the determination 
of the period for which such detention should continue should be 
left to the Advisory Board. 
In the very nature of things any 
decision as to the period of such detention can be taken only by 
the detaining authority upon which has been placed the responsi-
bility for the detention. The reference to the Advisory Board is 
intended to be a safeguard against any possible misuse of its power 
by the Executive and affords a machinery for the review of its 
decision on the basis of the representation made .by the detenu, 
the grounds of detention or the report of any Officer who may 
have passed the order, it is not a limitation on the Executive's 
discretion as to the discharge of its duties connected with prevent-
ive detention. 
A. K. 
Gopalan v. The State of Madras, (1950) S.C.R. 88, 
referred to. 
An examination of the scheme of the Act shows that its 
provisions are in conformity with the relevant provisions of the 
Constitution. While the Act authorises. detention for more than 
three months, it does provide for a reference of the order of deten-
tion to the Advisory Board and it is only after the Advisory Board 
has made its report that the Government can fix the period of 
detention under s. 11 (I) of the Act. 
Makhan Singh Tarsikka v. State of Punjab, (1952) S.C.R . .368 
and Dattatreya Moreshwar Pangarkar v. 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.