LexSHAMARAO V. PARULEKAR versus THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, THANA, BOMBAY AND TWO OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
j
. '
~~> .. {"
~ '
::- __ ;,::._--::: . ..
..... f'.
ii~:
t
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
SHAMARAO V. PARULEKAR
v.
THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, THANA,
BOMBAY AND TWO OTHERS
Petition No. 86 of 1952.
D. M. PANGARKAR
v.
THE STATE OF BOMBAY AND ANOTHER
Petition No. 147 of 1952.
MRS.GODAVARIPARULEKAR
v.
THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, THANA,
BOMBAY AND TWO OTHERS
Petition No. 157 of 1952.
683
GANESH LAXMAN PATIL FOR TUKARAM HARI
WAZEKAR
v.
THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KOLABA
AND TWO OTHERS
THE STATE OF HYDERABAD-INTERVENER
Petition No. 155 of 1952.
[PATANJALI SASTRI C.J., MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN,
MuKHERJEA, DAs and VIVIAN BosE JJ.]
Preventive Detention Act (IV of 1950)-Amendment Acts of .1951
and 1952-Detention order under Act of 1950 as amended in 1951
-Extension of duration of Act by Amending Act of 1952 until 1st
October, 1952-Whether extends period of detention-Amendment
Act-Rule
of
construction-"Principal
Act,"
meaning
of-
Validity of s. 3 of Amending Act of 1952-Legality of detention
after 1st April, 1952-Constitution
of India, Arts. 14, 22 (4)
and (7).
1952
May 26.
1952
Shamarao
V. Parulek_at
v.
2"he District
Magistrate ..
Thana,
and Others.
684
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1952J
1\i1 or<lcr directing the detention of the petitioner was n1ade
on the 15th of Nove1nber, 1951, under the Preventive Detention
Act of J 950 as a1nen<led by the A111ending Act of 1951, \Vhich
pfolonged the duration of the Act of 1950 up to the 1st April,
1952.
'The
Preventive Detention
(An1en<lment)
Act
of
1952
extended the duration of the Act of 1950 for a further period of
six 1nonths, that is to say, until the 1st October, 1952.
Section 3
of the Act of 1952
provided further that detention orders con·
finned under the principal Act and in -force itnn1ediately before
the conunencement of the Act of 1952,
sh~1ll, 1,-vhere the period of
detention is not specified in the order, re1nain in force "for so
long as the principal Act (which was defined as the Act of 1950)
\\'as in force." It \Vas contended on behalf of the petitioner that
his <letention after 1st 1\pril, 1952, \Vi.ls illegal.
1-Ield, (i) \Vhen a subsequent Act an1cnds an earlier one in
such a \Vay as to incorporate itself or a part of itself into the
earlier, then the earlier 1\ct 1nust thereafter be read and constru-
ed (except where that \vould lead to a repugnancy, inconsistency
or absurdity) as if the altered \vords had been written into the
earlier Act \Vith pen and ink and the old words scored out so that
there is no need to refer to the atneuding Act at all.
After the
passing of the Act of 1952 the expressions "the Act of 1950'"
and "the principal Act" incant the 1\ct of 1950 as a111ended by
the Act of 1952, and the effect of s. 3 of the Act of I 952 was that
the detention of the petitioner \Vould re1nain in force until the
1st October, 1952, without prejudice to the po\ver of the Govern·
n1ent to 1nodify or revoke it;
(ii) section 3 did not contravene Art. 14 of the Constitution
as there \Vas a rational classificatien of the cases of
detention
orders in the section, and the period of detention was left in
every case to the discretion of the State;
(iii) the words
"any
person
in
sub-cl. (b) of cl. 7 of
Art. 22 of the Constitution do not contemplate that individual
attention should be paid to each case; on the contrary, the words
used
in
the said sub-clause
empower
the Parlian1ent to pres·
cribe the maxin1um for a class taken as a
\vholc as it has done in
s. 3, ands. 3 does not therefore offend cl. (4) or cl. (7) of Art. 22;
(iv) the
power
of
the
Parliament
to
fix
a
maxi1nu!P
period does not
exhaust
itself
once it
has
exercised 'that
power but can
be exercised again
in
respect
of the same
detention;
( v) section
3 1s
not
repugn~nt to the
Constitution on the
ground that it does
not fix a time limit, for it specifies the
•
period as
until the expiry of the Act; nor on the ground that it
...,.-1
introduces
the
idea
of
potentially
indefinite
detention
by
periodical amendments; for
the Parliament has the power to
do that.
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
685
ORIGINAL
JumsorcnoN : Petitions
(Nos.
86,
147,
157 and 155 of 1952) under article 32 of the Const'i-
tution for writs in the nature of habeas corpus.
Petitioners in person in petitions Nos. 86, 147 and
157 of 1952.
Rajani Patel for the petitioner in petition No. 155.
M. C. Setalvad, AttomExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.