9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Competency of appeals by the Crown from the High Court to the Federal Court and further to His Majesty in Council. 2. Validity of Rule 26 of the Defence of India Rules. 3. Requirement of personal satisfaction by the Governor for detention orders under Rule 26. 4. Validity of detention orders based on the routine order of October 1, 1942. 5. Specific validity of detention orders for each respondent. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Competency of Appeals by the Crown: The Federal Court considered the competency of appeals by the Crown from the High Court to the Federal Court under Sections 205 and 208 of the Government of India Act, 1935. The court concluded that "in view of the special terms of Section 205, the appeals in the present case were competent." The court referenced Cox v. Hakes, where it was held that the right of appeal did not include an appeal against an order of discharge made upon a writ of habeas corpus. However, the court differentiated the Indian context and the purpose of Section 205, which aimed to secure uniformity of decision in every High Court by a superior court. Thus, the appeals were deemed competent. 2. Validity of Rule 26 of the Defence of India Rules: The court addressed the validity of Rule 26, which had been declared ultra vires by the Federal Court in Talpade's case. The court disagreed with the Federal Court's interpretation, stating that "the function of Sub-Section 2 is merely an illustrative one; the rule-making power is conferred by Sub-section 1." The court held that "the general language of Sub-Section 1 amply justifies the terms of r. 26," thus overturning the Federal Court's decision and validating Rule 26. 3. Requirement of Personal Satisfaction by the Governor: The court examined whether the Governor must be personally satisfied as to the matters set out in Rule 26. The majority of the Federal Court held that personal satisfaction was necessary, while the Chief Justice disagreed, stating that the Governor could act through the normal executive procedures. The court agreed with the Chief Justice, concluding that "such matters as those which fell to be dealt with by the Governor under r. 26, could be dealt with by him in the normal manner in which the executive business of the Provincial Government was carried on under the provisions of Chapter II of Part III of the Act of 1935." 4. Validity of Detention Orders Based on the Routine Order of October 1, 1942: The court scrutinized the routine order issued by the Home Minister on October 1, 1942, which directed that detention orders under Rule 26 be issued as a matter of course based on police recommendations. The court found that this routine order "clearly meant the substitution of the recommendation by the police in place of the satisfaction of the Governor prescribed by r. 26," rendering such orders "ab initio void and invalid." The court invalidated the detention orders for Respondents No. 1 and No. 5 based on this routine order. 5. Specific Validity of Detention Orders for Each Respondent: The court analyzed the validity of detention orders for each respondent individually: - Respondents No. 1 and No. 5: The court found the detention orders invalid due to reliance on the routine order. - Respondents No. 3, No. 6, No. 7, and No. 8: The court found no evidence to rebut the presumption of regularity. The court stated that "there is no evidence in these cases sufficient to rebut the presumption as to their regularity." Consequently, the detention orders for these respondents were upheld as valid. Conclusion: The appeal was allowed for Respondents No. 3, No. 6, No. 7, and No. 8, declaring the detention orders valid. The appeal was dismissed for Respondents No. 1 and No. 5, affirming the judgments and orders of the lower courts. The court advised that there would be no order as to costs.
|
