LexS. KRISHNAN AND OTHERS versus THE STATE OF MADRAS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[1951] SUPREME COURT REPORTS S. KRISHNAN AND OTHERS "· THE STATE OF MADRAS (AND OTHER PETITIONS) UNION OF INDIA-Intervener [SHRI HARILAL KANIA C. J., PATANJALI SAsTRI, MEHAR CHAND MAHAJAN, s. R. DAS ~d VIVIAN BosE JJ.] 621 Preventive Detention (Amendment) Act, 1951, ss. 9, 10, 11, 12- Indian Constitution, 1950, Arts. 22( 4) (a) & (b), 22(7)-Dctentions under eariicr Act treated as detentions under new Act and continued for more than one year-Omission to fix maximum period-Infringe- ment of fundamental rights-Contravention of Constitution- Validity of amending Act-Temporary Stateites-Order of detentions -Validity after expiry of Statute. The Preventive Detention (Amendment) Act of 1951 which extended the operation of the Preventive Detention Act of 1950 for a period of one more year, that is, up to 1st April, 1952, effected two material alterations by providing (i) that a reference to an Advisory Board shall be made in all cases within six weeks (s. 9) ; (ii) that every detention order in force at the commence- ment of the new Act shall continue in force and shall have effect as if had been made under the Act as amended (s. I:!). The petitioners, who were on the date of the commencement of the amending Act in detention in pursuance of orders made under s. 3(1) (a) (ii) of the Preventive Detention Act of 1950, and who but for the amending Act would have been entitled to be releas- ed under the eai"lier Act on the expiry of one year from the date of the order of detention, applied for habeas corpus contending that ss. 9 and 12 of the amending Act which enacted the above mentioned provisions contravened the provisions of Art. 22( 4) (a) of the Constitution and were consequently void under Art. 13(a) inasmuch as the combined effect of these sections was to keep the petitioners in detention for a period longer than three months without reference to an Advisory Board, and also to keep them in detention for a period of more than one year. The Act was also attacked on the ground that it did not fix any maximum period for detention : Held, per KANIA C. J., PATANJALI SASTRI, MAHAJAN, S. R. DAS and BosE JJ. :-that ss. 9 and 12 of the Preventive Detention (Amendment) Act, 1951, and not contravene Art. 22 (4) of the Constitution and were not void. 1951 May 7 1951 s. Krbhnan and Others v. The State of MadraJ. 622 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1951] Per KANIA C.].1 and PATANJALI SAsTRI J.-The amending Act could be regarded as a law made substantially in accordance with sub-clauses (a) and (b) of cl. (7) of Art. 22, and as such it satisfied the requirements of Art. 22(4) (b) and cannot be held to be unconstinttional or void. Per MAHAJAN and DAs JJ.-The law enacted by the amending statute is not the same law as was declared by the original statute and to that extent the amended statute was in the nature of a new and independent statute; the effect of s. 12 was to make the detention of the petitioners a fresh detention under the r.cw la\v ; and there was nothing in the new law standing by itself \vhich authorised detention of a person for more than three months without ref~rence to an Advisory Board or for more than one year and there was thus no contravention of any of the provi~ sions of Art. 22 ( 4). Held also per KANIA C. J., PATANJALI SAsTR1, MAHAJAN and DAs Tl. (BosE J. dissenting).-The Preventive Detention (Amend- ment) Act, 1951, was not invalid on the ground that it did not fix a maximum period for detention, inasmuch as the Act itself \Vas to be in force only for a period of one year and no deten- tion under the Act could be continued after the expiry of the Act. Born J.-Sub-scction (!) of s. II of the impugned Act contravened Art. 22 ( 4) of the Constirution inasmuch as it did not fix any maximum period of detention, but on the other hand empowered the government in express terms to order that a detention shall continue "for such period as it thinks fit". The view that a detention which has been ordered under an Act would come to an end with the expiry of the Act is not sound. ORIGINAL Jm1sn1CT10N.-Petitions Nos. 303, 617 to 619, 621 to 631, 561 to 571, 592, 594, 596 and 600 of 1950. Petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution for writs in the nature of habeas corpus. The peti- tioners . were detained in pursuance of orders for deten- tion made under s. 3 (1) (a) (ii) of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950. O
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.