9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Petition for writ of habeas corpus under article 32 of the Constitution challenging the legality of detention orders, failure to provide grounds for detention, validity of subsequent detention orders, compliance with Preventive Detention Act, 1950, and constitutionality of detention under article 22. Analysis: The petitioner was detained under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, with the grounds of detention served later. A subsequent order was issued amending the detention period, but no fresh grounds were provided, leading to a habeas corpus petition. The State Government revoked the initial detention order and issued a new one, which was challenged as a ploy to circumvent the habeas corpus petition. The legality of fixing the detention term before Advisory Board opinion was also contested, citing a previous court ruling. The State justified the detention citing technical defects in earlier orders and a review process by District Magistrates. The case was referred to a Constitution bench for consideration. The respondent argued that a defective initial detention order can be rectified with a valid subsequent order, relying on a previous court decision. The court clarified that habeas corpus proceedings focus on current legality of detention and not past defects, emphasizing strict compliance with legal procedures. The petitioner's counsel contended that post-constitutional preventive detention must strictly adhere to article 22 procedures, limiting judicial review to procedural compliance. The court highlighted the power of the detaining authority to issue fresh detention orders to rectify legal defects, especially in habeas corpus cases. The court differentiated between bad faith orders and legitimate fresh orders to ensure compliance with legal requirements. The court remitted the case for further hearing, clarifying the legality of subsequent detention orders and the authority's power to issue fresh orders to rectify defects. The ruling set a precedent for similar cases raising similar legal questions. Conclusion: The judgment addressed the legality of detention orders, the necessity of providing grounds for detention, compliance with the Preventive Detention Act, and the constitutionality of detention under article 22. It highlighted the authority's power to issue fresh detention orders to rectify legal defects and emphasized the court's focus on the current legality of detention in habeas corpus proceedings. The ruling clarified the scope of judicial review in preventive detention cases and set a precedent for future cases with similar legal issues.
|
