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%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the detention and subsequent restraint of a foreigner, after revocation of the preventive detention order, was illegal so as to require immediate release in habeas corpus proceedings.
Analysis: The petitioner was not a citizen of India and therefore could not claim the fundamental right under Article 19 to remain in India. The detention order had been passed under the Jammu and Kashmir Preventive Detention Act, 1964 with the object of making arrangements for expulsion, and the later deportation order was made under the Foreigners Act, 1946 pursuant to a valid entrustment of functions to the State Government under Article 258 of the Constitution of India. The Court held that the petitioner had no lawful right to stay in India and that the restraint on his liberty was only to enforce expulsion in accordance with the governing statutory scheme. In these circumstances, the custody could not be treated as illegal deprivation of personal liberty attracting release in habeas corpus.
Conclusion: The restraint was lawful and the petitioner was not entitled to immediate release.
Ratio Decidendi: A foreigner who has no lawful right to remain in India may be restrained for the purpose of deportation in accordance with the governing statute, and such restraint does not amount to illegal custody warranting habeas corpus relief.