9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Detention legality under Jammu and Kashmir Preventive Detention Act. 2. Interpretation of the provisions of s. 14 of the Jammu and Kashmir Preventive Detention Act. 3. Communication of government decisions to the detenue. 4. Application of Art. 22(4) of the Constitution. Analysis: The petitioner filed a petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution seeking release from detention under the Jammu and Kashmir Preventive Detention Act. The petitioner was initially detained on June 30, 1954, and subsequent orders extending the detention were made. The petitioner challenged the legality of the detention, raising concerns about the timing of the order under s. 14 and discrepancies in the grounds of detention. The petitioner's representation to the Government and subsequent legal actions were outlined in the judgment. The Attorney-General raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petition based on the observations of the Vacation Judge. The petitioner's counsel, Shri T. R. Bhasin, focused on new legal points in a supplementary petition, abandoning factual issues raised earlier. The counsel argued that the detention became illegal as the order under s. 14 was not made within three months of the initial detention order. Another point raised was regarding a typographical error in the Chief Secretary's affidavit, which was clarified during the proceedings. The interpretation of Art. 22(4) of the Constitution was crucial in determining the legality of the detention beyond three months. The counsel contended that a formal order under s. 14 should have been communicated to the detenue within the specified period. However, the judgment highlighted that s. 14 does not explicitly require a formal order and allows for detention without Advisory Board opinion for a longer period. The decision of the Government to continue detention under s. 14 was found to be within the legal framework, and the communication of this decision to the detenue was deemed unnecessary based on legal precedents. The Court dismissed the application, emphasizing that the detention under the Jammu and Kashmir Preventive Detention Act was lawful and in compliance with the constitutional provisions. The judgment underscored that the absence of a formal order under s. 14 did not render the detention illegal, drawing parallels with similar legal interpretations under the Indian Preventive Detention Act. The application was ultimately rejected based on the legal analysis presented.
|
