9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Constitutionality of Section 11(1) of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950. 2. Sufficiency and vagueness of the grounds of detention. 3. Allegations of mala fides in the detention order. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Constitutionality of Section 11(1) of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950: The appellant argued that Section 11(1) of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 does not conform to the constitutional mandate given by Article 22(4)(a) of the Constitution. The primary duty of the Court was to compare the statute with the Constitution to determine conformity. Article 22(4)(a) states that no law providing for preventive detention shall authorize the detention of a person for a period longer than three months unless an Advisory Board reports that there is sufficient cause for such detention. The appellant contended that the expression "such detention" in Article 22(4)(a) refers to detention for a period longer than three months, and therefore, the Advisory Board must specifically report sufficient cause for detention beyond three months. The respondent argued that "such detention" refers to preventive detention in general, and the Advisory Board only needs to determine if there is sufficient cause for detention, without specifying the period. The Court held that Article 22(4) lays down a prohibition against any law providing for detention for more than three months without a provision for an Advisory Board. The Advisory Board's role is to determine whether the detention is justified, not the duration of the detention. The Court concluded that Section 11(1) of the Act does not contravene any provisions of Article 22 and is valid. 2. Sufficiency and Vagueness of the Grounds of Detention: The appellant argued that the grounds of detention communicated to him were vague, except for ground No. 2, and did not allow him to make an effective representation as guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution. The grounds of detention included allegations of spreading false reports to foreign correspondents, being in touch with hostile persons in Pakistan, receiving financial assistance from Pakistan, and attending secret meetings. The Court referred to the decision in Lawrence Joachim Joseph D'Souza v. The State of Bombay, which held that the right to be furnished with facts or particulars is subject to the limitation mentioned in Article 22(6), which allows the detaining authority to withhold facts considered against the public interest. The Court found that the grounds, although not as precise as desired, provided sufficient opportunity for the appellant to make a representation. Regarding ground No. 2, the appellant argued that it was punitive rather than preventive, irrelevant to the objects of detention, and contained verbal inaccuracies. The Court dismissed these arguments, stating that past conduct is relevant to infer future actions, the ground had a rational connection with the objects of detention, and the verbal inaccuracies were inconsequential. 3. Allegations of Mala Fides in the Detention Order: The appellant alleged that the detention order was made with mala fide intentions, citing his activities from 1954 onwards and statements by the Prime Minister and Home Minister. The Court agreed with the Punjab High Court that the appellant's activities and the events mentioned did not show that the detention order was made for any ulterior purpose or purposes other than those stated in the detention order. The Court held that no mala fides were established. Separate Judgment by A.K. Sarkar, J.: A.K. Sarkar, J., provided a separate judgment focusing on the constitutionality of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950. He agreed with the appellant's contention that the Act did not satisfy Article 22(4)(a) of the Constitution. He interpreted the words "such detention" to mean detention for a period longer than three months and concluded that the Act must provide for the Advisory Board to report sufficient cause for detention beyond three months. Since the Act did not contain this provision, he found it ultra vires the Constitution and would have allowed the appeal. Conclusion: The majority of the Court upheld the validity of Section 11(1) of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, and dismissed the appeal, finding that the grounds of detention were sufficient and no mala fides were established. However, A.K. Sarkar, J., dissented, finding the Act unconstitutional for not conforming to Article 22(4)(a).
|
