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: Whether Section 17A of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 was valid in the light of Article 22(4)(b) and Article 22(7)(a) of the Constitution of India.
Analysis: Article 22(4)(a) was read as laying down the general rule that preventive detention beyond three months requires the safeguard of an advisory board. Article 22(4)(b) read with Article 22(7)(a) was treated as an exception permitting Parliament to dispense with that safeguard only by prescribing both the circumstances and the class or classes of cases in which such longer detention without advisory board scrutiny could be authorised. Section 17A was held to be unconstitutional because it merely reproduced the broad legislative heads on which detention was permissible and did not itself specify the exceptional circumstances and classes of cases required by Article 22(7)(a).
Conclusion: Section 17A was invalid for non-compliance with Article 22(7)(a), and the detention founded upon it could not stand.
Ratio Decidendi: A law authorising preventive detention for more than three months without an advisory board must specifically prescribe both the exceptional circumstances and the class or classes of cases for which that dispensation is allowed; a mere repetition of the broad statutory heads of detention is insufficient.
TaxTMI 
