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>Court upholds legality of detention order under Defence of India Rules, dismissing challenges to joint ministerial orders</h1> <h3>Godawari S. Parulekar and others Versus State of Maharashtra</h3> The High Court upheld the legality of a detention order issued on February 3, 1964, despite finding earlier detentions illegal. It clarified the ... - Issues:1. Legality of detention under various orders from November 1962 to February 1964.2. Competency of State Government to pass detention order under r. 30 of the Defence of India Rules, 1962.3. Legality of joint passing of detention order by two Ministers.4. Allegation of malice in law in passing the detention order.5. Requirement of fresh consideration before passing a new detention order.6. Necessity of material for detaining a person for the maintenance of public order.Detailed Analysis:The judgment involved appeals challenging the legality of detention orders issued between November 1962 and February 1964. The High Court of Bombay had ruled the detention from May 1963 to February 1964 illegal but upheld the February 3, 1964 detention order. The first issue addressed was the competency of the State Government to pass a detention order under r. 30 of the Defence of India Rules, 1962, despite delegation to District Magistrates. The court rejected the argument that the State Government lost its power due to delegation, emphasizing that delegation does not imply a complete transfer of power.The second issue was whether two Ministers could jointly pass a detention order. The court clarified that satisfaction by different Ministers for different reasons could lead to a valid joint order of detention. The judgment highlighted that the law did not require concentration of all relevant subjects in one Minister for valid orders of detention. The third issue was the allegation of malice in law in passing the detention order. The court cited precedents emphasizing that a detaining authority could supersede an earlier illegal order with a valid one, provided there was no bad faith proven.The next issue addressed was the necessity of fresh consideration before passing a new detention order. The court rejected the argument that the new order lacked fresh consideration, stating that the Ministers were satisfied in accordance with the rules of business. The judgment clarified that the High Court's insistence on Ministers filing affidavits depended on the specific case. Lastly, the court examined the necessity of material for detaining a person for the maintenance of public order. It reiterated that the detaining authority's satisfaction based on available material was not justiciable, and upheld the legality of the February 3, 1964 detention order.In conclusion, the appeals challenging the detention orders were dismissed, affirming the legality of the February 3, 1964 detention order. The judgment also addressed additional appeals with similar issues but emphasized that the focus was on the current detention order, not past ones.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
