9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Validity of detention order under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950. 2. Interpretation of the amended provisions of the Preventive Detention Act, 1951. 3. Consideration of the period of detention in light of the Advisory Board's role. 4. Compliance with the legal procedure for depriving a person of personal liberty. Detailed Analysis: The judgment by the Supreme Court involves a petition under article 32 of the Constitution challenging the detention of the petitioner under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950. The petitioner was initially detained under an order dated 1st March, 1950, which was later followed by a second detention order dated 30th July, 1951. The key contention was whether the second order, directing detention until 31st March, 1952, was a fresh order or merely a limitation of the period of detention. The Court noted that the second order, accompanied by fresh grounds of detention, was indeed a fresh order, as evidenced by the unnecessary service of new grounds if it was not intended as such. The Court emphasized that the Act as amended in 1951 required cases of detention to be reviewed by an Advisory Board, which would then inform the appropriate Government to determine the period of detention. The Court held that fixing the period of detention in the initial order was against the Act's scheme and stressed the importance of following the legal procedure strictly before depriving an individual of personal liberty. The judgment highlighted the significance of the Advisory Board's role in determining the period of detention post the amendment to the Preventive Detention Act. The Court rejected the argument that the direction in the order specifying the detention until the Act's expiry date was insignificant, emphasizing that such a provision could prejudice the fair consideration of the petitioner's case by the Advisory Board. The Court reiterated the principle that the established legal procedure must be strictly adhered to without any deviation to safeguard the rights of individuals facing deprivation of personal liberty. Ultimately, the Court allowed the petition, ruling in favor of the petitioner and ordering their release from detention.
|
