1955 (2) TMI 19 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Constitutionality of Section 3(1)(b) of the Preventive Detention Act.
2. Validity of the petitioner's detention under Article 22.
3. Allegation of detention in bad faith.
4. Differentiation between expulsion and extradition under Indian law.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Constitutionality of Section 3(1)(b) of the Preventive Detention Act:
The petitioner argued that Section 3(1)(b) of the Preventive Detention Act is ultra vires the Constitution on three grounds: (a) it contravenes Articles 21 and 22, (b) it contravenes Article 14, and (c) it was beyond the legislative competence of Parliament to enact such a law. The Court held that the legislative competence of Parliament to enact such a law is derived from Entry 9 of the Union List read with Entry 10, which covers preventive detention for reasons connected with Foreign Affairs. The Court found that the language of these entries must be given the widest scope and concluded that legislation dealing with the detention of foreigners falls within the ambit of "Foreign Affairs." Thus, Section 3(1)(b) is within the legislative competence of Parliament.

2. Validity of the Petitioner's Detention under Article 22:
The petitioner contended that Section 3(1)(b) is not a law of preventive detention within the meaning of Article 22(3) and therefore contravenes Article 22(1) and (2). The Court observed that Article 21 guarantees protection of personal liberty to citizens and foreigners alike, and Article 22 prescribes the minimum procedural safeguards. The Court noted that preventive detention under Section 3(1)(b) is reasonably related to the purpose of preventing evasion of expulsion orders, thus falling within the ambit of preventive detention as contemplated by the Constitution. The Court upheld that the procedural safeguards under Articles 21 and 22 were observed.

3. Allegation of Detention in Bad Faith:
The petitioner alleged that the detention was in bad faith, arguing that the real objective was to keep him in custody until the West German Government could initiate extradition proceedings. The Court found no evidence to support this claim, noting that the detention order was made before any communication from the West German Consul. The Court also rejected the argument that the detention was intended to hand the petitioner over to German authorities without formal extradition proceedings, stating that the Government's actions were consistent with making arrangements for expulsion.

4. Differentiation between Expulsion and Extradition under Indian Law:
The Court examined whether the Government had the power to expel a foreigner as opposed to extraditing him. It held that the Foreigners Act confers the Central Government with absolute discretion to expel foreigners, distinct from the Extradition Act which deals with the formal process of extradition involving judicial proceedings. The Court emphasized that expulsion under the Foreigners Act allows the individual to leave India as a free man, whereas extradition involves continuous custody. The Court concluded that the Foreigners Act and the Extradition Act operate independently, and the Government's choice to use the Foreigners Act does not indicate bad faith.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that Section 3(1)(b) of the Preventive Detention Act is constitutional, the petitioner's detention was valid under Article 22, there was no bad faith in the detention, and the Government had the discretion to choose expulsion over extradition.