TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution were maintainable during the operation of Presidential Orders suspending the right to move any court for enforcement of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 22. (ii) Whether the conditions of detention and the consequential directions issued by the High Courts regarding facilities to detenus could be challenged or enforced by judicial orders during the emergency.
Issue (i): Whether writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution were maintainable during the operation of Presidential Orders suspending the right to move any court for enforcement of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 22.
Analysis: The Presidential Orders issued under Article 359(1) were held to operate as a complete and unconditional bar against proceedings for enforcement of the specified fundamental rights during the emergency. The effect of such orders was not confined to release from detention, but extended to any judicial attempt to enforce personal liberty or rights which fell within the suspended field. The challenge to detention conditions, even when framed as a complaint of illegality, unreasonableness or ultra vires, was treated as an indirect attempt to enforce the suspended rights.
Conclusion: The writ petitions were not maintainable to the extent they sought enforcement of the suspended fundamental rights, and the detenus had no locus standi to invoke judicial enforcement during the subsisting Presidential Orders.
Issue (ii): Whether the conditions of detention and the consequential directions issued by the High Courts regarding facilities to detenus could be challenged or enforced by judicial orders during the emergency.
Analysis: The Court held that questions relating to the manner, extent and conditions of detention under the preventive detention law were matters for the appropriate Government and the administrative authorities, particularly where the statute empowered them to regulate detention and related concessions. Judicial scrutiny of such conditions was barred when the relief claimed would, in substance, enforce personal liberty or fundamental rights whose enforcement stood suspended. The High Courts were therefore held to have erred in striking down detention-condition clauses and in issuing affirmative directions for facilities, interviews, medical access, private supplies and similar matters.
Conclusion: The High Courts lacked jurisdiction to grant the impugned reliefs, and the orders striking down detention-condition clauses and issuing facility directions were unsustainable.
Final Conclusion: The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional bar on judicial enforcement of the suspended fundamental rights during the emergency, set aside the impugned facility directions except in the dismissed appeals, and left the detenus to seek relief from the competent executive authorities.
Ratio Decidendi: During a valid emergency, a Presidential Order under Article 359(1) suspending the right to move any court for enforcement of specified fundamental rights bars judicial relief which directly or indirectly seeks to enforce those rights, including challenges to detention conditions and ancillary facilities.
TaxTMI 
