1952 (5) TMI 12 - SC - Indian Laws

Principal Act covers 1950 Act as amended 1951-1952; prefer constructions avoiding absurdity; detention grounds read as whole.

SC upheld that 'principal Act' means the 1950 Act as amended in 1951 and 1952, and courts must prefer constructions avoiding absurdity, even modifying ... Detention orders - Vires and applicability of Section 3 of the Preventive Detention (Amendment) Act, 1952 - Held that:- According to the rule of construction just examined, the words 'principal Act' mean the Act of 1950 as amended by the Acts of 1951 and of 1952, 'that is to say, the Act of 1950 due to expire on the 1st of October, 1952. Incidentally, in the particular context it could not mean the Act of 1950 as it stood in 1950 because no order confirmed under it as it then stood could have been alive 'at the commencement of this Act', namely on the 15th of March, 1952. In our opinion, they were unnecessary in the sense that their absence would not have made any difference to the interpretation though it would have made the section harder to follow and understand. It is the duty of Courts to give effect to the meaning of an Act when the meaning can be fairly gathered from the words used, that is to say, if one construction will lead to an absurdity while another will give effect to what common sense would show was obviously intended the construction which would defeat the ends of the Act must be rejected even if the same words used in the same section, and even the same sentence, have to be construed differently. Indeed, the law goes so far as to require the Courts sometimes even to modify the grammatical and ordinary sense of the words if by doing so absurdity and inconsistency can be avoided. The grounds of detention must be regarded as a whole and when that is done the relevance of the first ground becomes plain. Gravamen of the charge against the petitioner is that he aimed at setting up a parallel government in the Uran Peta area and that in order to achieve that end he did various acts such as intimidating the workers in the salt pans with threats of murder, and his own workers with threats of death, unless they carried out his orders; and among the lesser instances given to illustrate the exercise of parallel governmental authority are the ones set out in the first ground, namely the infliction of fines with the sanction of excommunication and boycott to ensure their payment and due obedience to his orders. This point has no force and is decided against the petitioner. It will not be open to him to re-agitate this afresh when his case is reheard on the remaining issues. All the four cases will now be set down for hearing on the remaining points which arise in them. Issues Involved:1. Vires and applicability of Section 3 of the Preventive Detention (Amendment) Act, 1952.2. Validity of the detention order under the amended Act.3. Alleged discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution.4. Compliance with Article 22 (4) and (7) of the Constitution.5. Specific ground of detention in Petition No. 155 of 1952.Detailed Analysis:1. Vires and Applicability of Section 3 of the Preventive Detention (Amendment) Act, 1952:The primary issue was whether Section 3 of the Preventive Detention (Amendment) Act, 1952, had the vires to prolong the detention and if it applied to the current cases. The court concluded that the Act of 1950, as amended by the Acts of 1951 and 1952, must be read as a single entity, meaning the detention could be extended until the new expiration date of the Act, i.e., 1st October 1952. The court emphasized that the construction of an amended Act must incorporate the amendments into the original Act, making the amended Act the operative law.2. Validity of the Detention Order Under the Amended Act:The court examined the contention that the mere prolongation of the Act's life did not automatically extend the detention period. It was argued that a new detention order was required. However, the court held that Section 3 of the amending Act explicitly stated that detention orders confirmed under Section 11 of the principal Act would continue to remain in force as long as the principal Act was in force. Thus, the court found no difficulty in the construction and upheld the validity of the detention orders under the amended Act.3. Alleged Discrimination Under Article 14 of the Constitution:The petitioner argued that Section 3 discriminated against those whose cases had already been considered by an Advisory Board, as opposed to those whose cases had not. The court referred to the principles laid down in The State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, emphasizing that classification must be rational and related to the legislation's purpose. The court found the classification reasonable, as it differentiated between those whose detentions had been confirmed by an Advisory Board and those who had not yet been reviewed. The court held that the law was fair and did not violate Article 14.4. Compliance with Article 22 (4) and (7) of the Constitution:The court addressed the argument that Article 22 (4) and (7) required individual consideration of each detention case by a specified authority, not by Parliament. The court clarified that Article 22 (4) required an Advisory Board's review for detentions beyond three months, but once the Advisory Board confirmed the detention, Parliament could prescribe a maximum period for classes of cases. The court held that Parliament had the authority to extend detentions for a specified period and that Section 3 of the amending Act complied with the constitutional provisions.5. Specific Ground of Detention in Petition No. 155 of 1952:The petitioner in this case argued that the grounds for detention, such as using his position to impose fines and excommunication, did not relate to the security of the State or public order as required under Section 3 (1) (a) of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950. The court examined the grounds as a whole and concluded that the petitioner's actions aimed at setting up a parallel government, which justified the detention under the Act. The court found the grounds relevant and dismissed the petitioner's argument.Conclusion:The court upheld the vires and applicability of Section 3 of the Preventive Detention (Amendment) Act, 1952, and found the detentions valid under the amended Act. The court rejected the arguments of discrimination under Article 14 and non-compliance with Article 22 (4) and (7). The specific ground of detention in Petition No. 155 of 1952 was also found to be relevant. The remaining points in the petitions were left open for another Bench to decide.