1952 (11) TMI 11 - SC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Constitutionality of the Abducted Persons (Recovery and Restoration) Act, 1949 under Article 19 of the Constitution.
2. Constitutionality of the Act under Article 22 of the Constitution.
3. Supervision of the Tribunal under Article 227 of the Constitution.
4. Conflict of the Act with Article 14 of the Constitution.
5. Conflict of the Act with Article 15 of the Constitution.
6. Conflict of the Act with Article 21 of the Constitution.
7. Proper constitution of the Tribunal under the Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Constitutionality of the Act under Article 19:
The High Court's Full Bench answered this question in the negative. Bhandari J., however, held that the Act was inconsistent with Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The Supreme Court did not find it necessary to delve into this issue further, as the primary focus was on Article 22.

2. Constitutionality of the Act under Article 22:
The Full Bench of the High Court unanimously held that the Act was inconsistent with the provisions of Article 22 and was void to the extent of such inconsistency. The Supreme Court examined whether the recovery and taking into custody of an abducted person under Section 4 of the Act constituted "arrest and detention" within the meaning of Article 22(1) and (2). The Court concluded that the physical restraint imposed on an abducted person without any accusation of criminal or quasi-criminal nature did not amount to arrest and detention under Article 22(1) and (2). Therefore, the Act did not violate Article 22.

3. Supervision of the Tribunal under Article 227:
The High Court did not fully argue this question, but Bhandari and Khosla JJ. expressed the view that the Tribunal was subject to the general supervision of the High Court under Article 227. The Supreme Court did not provide further analysis on this issue.

4. Conflict of the Act with Article 14:
The High Court unanimously answered this question in the negative. The Supreme Court agreed, stating that Muslim abducted persons constituted a well-defined class for the purpose of legislation. The geographical classification of the Act's applicability to specific States was also deemed non-discriminatory. The Court found no discrimination in Sections 6 and 7 of the Act.

5. Conflict of the Act with Article 15:
The High Court unanimously answered this question in the negative. The Supreme Court agreed with this conclusion and did not find any discrimination based on religion alone against abducted persons who were citizens of India.

6. Conflict of the Act with Article 21:
The High Court unanimously answered this question in the negative. The Supreme Court concurred, stating that the Act did not deprive abducted persons of their personal liberty in a manner contrary to principles of natural justice.

7. Proper Constitution of the Tribunal:
The High Court found that the Tribunal was not properly constituted as its members were not appointed or nominated by the Central Government, rendering its order without jurisdiction. The Supreme Court upheld this finding, and the learned Solicitor General conceded that the Tribunal was not properly constituted under Section 6 of the Act.

Conclusion:
Although the Supreme Court found that the High Court erred in its construction of Article 22, the appeal was dismissed on the ground that the Tribunal was not properly constituted, and its order was without jurisdiction. The Supreme Court made no order as to costs.