TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Validity of Preventive Detention Laws: Procedural Safeguards Emphasized</h1> <h3>AK. GOPALAN Versus STATE OF MADRAS</h3> The Court upheld the validity of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, except for Section 14, which was declared ultra vires. The Court emphasized that ... - Issues Involved:1. Validity of Preventive Detention under Article 21 and Article 22 of the Constitution.2. Interpretation of 'procedure established by law' in Article 21.3. Applicability of Article 19 (1) (d) to Preventive Detention.4. Constitutionality of Section 12 and Section 14 of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of Preventive Detention under Article 21 and Article 22 of the Constitution:The petitioner contended that preventive detention violates Article 21, which states that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law. The argument was that the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, does not follow a proper procedure as required under Article 21. However, the Court held that Article 22 specifically deals with preventive detention and provides certain safeguards, such as the requirement of an advisory board for detentions exceeding three months, communication of grounds of detention to the detainee, and the opportunity to make a representation against the detention order. The Court concluded that as long as the Preventive Detention Act conforms to the provisions of Article 22, it does not violate Article 21.2. Interpretation of 'procedure established by law' in Article 21:The petitioner argued that 'procedure established by law' should be interpreted to include principles of natural justice, which would require notice, an opportunity to be heard, and an impartial tribunal. The Court, however, held that 'procedure established by law' refers to a procedure that is statutorily enacted and does not necessarily include the principles of natural justice. The Court emphasized that the Constitution deliberately chose the phrase 'procedure established by law' instead of 'due process of law' to avoid the vagueness and uncertainty associated with the latter.3. Applicability of Article 19 (1) (d) to Preventive Detention:The petitioner contended that preventive detention infringes the right to move freely throughout the territory of India under Article 19 (1) (d), and therefore, its validity should be tested against the reasonableness requirement in Article 19 (5). The Court held that Article 19 (1) (d) deals with the right to move freely within the territory of India and does not encompass preventive detention, which is a separate matter covered by Articles 21 and 22. The Court concluded that the validity of preventive detention laws should be examined under Articles 21 and 22, not Article 19.4. Constitutionality of Section 12 and Section 14 of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950:- Section 12: The petitioner argued that Section 12, which allows detention without an advisory board's opinion for up to one year, does not comply with Article 22 (7) of the Constitution. The Court held that Section 12 is valid as it falls within the scope of Article 22 (7), which permits Parliament to prescribe the circumstances and classes of cases for longer detention without an advisory board's opinion. The Court found that the classification made in Section 12 was within the legislative competence of Parliament.- Section 14: The petitioner contended that Section 14, which prohibits the disclosure of the grounds of detention and the representation made by the detainee, violates Article 22 (5) and Article 32 of the Constitution. The Court agreed that Section 14 abridges the right to move the Court for enforcement of fundamental rights under Article 32, as it prevents the Court from examining whether the grounds of detention are relevant and sufficient. Therefore, the Court held Section 14 to be ultra vires and invalid. However, the invalidity of Section 14 did not affect the validity of the rest of the Act.Conclusion:The Court upheld the validity of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, except for Section 14, which was declared ultra vires. The Court emphasized that preventive detention laws must conform to the procedural safeguards provided in Article 22 of the Constitution. The interpretation of 'procedure established by law' in Article 21 does not include principles of natural justice but refers to statutorily enacted procedures. The validity of preventive detention laws should be examined under Articles 21 and 22, not Article 19.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
