9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Challenge to the validity of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 under Article 13(2) of the Constitution. 2. Allegation of the detention order being 'mala fide' and an abuse of power. Analysis: Issue 1: The petitioner, a member of the Hindu Mahasabha, challenged the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, claiming it violates fundamental rights under the Constitution. The Supreme Court upheld the Act's validity, except for certain severable provisions. The petitioner's detention was under this Act, and the invalid provisions did not affect his case. The Act was deemed constitutional by the majority of the Court. Issue 2: The petitioner alleged that his detention order was 'mala fide' and an abuse of power. The District Magistrate justified the detention to prevent actions prejudicial to public order. The Court noted the communal tensions and the petitioner's activities, including a press conference with communal undertones. While suspicion arose, the Court found no proof of improper motive. The petitioner's relief work did not negate the possibility of inciting communal passions. The Court dismissed the petition, emphasizing that the authority's satisfaction is crucial for detention under the Act. Separate Judgment: In a separate judgment, it was argued that the petitioner's detention was unnecessary under the circumstances. The petitioner's temporary presence in Delhi for meetings and his habitual residence in West Bengal raised doubts about the detention's necessity. The District Magistrate's use of Preventive Detention Act instead of ordinary laws for communal peace maintenance was questioned. While no clear evidence of bad faith was found, suspicion lingered. The Court urged authorities to avoid misuse of extraordinary powers, suggesting reliance on regular legal provisions for such cases. Ultimately, the application was dismissed, highlighting the need for caution in exercising preventive detention powers.
|
