https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313994 A Presidential suspension order under Article 359 was construed strictly and did not bar petitions raising grounds outside the suspended fundamental rights; independent challenges to the detention scheme remained maintainable. Rule 30(1)(b) of the Defence of India Rules, 1962 was upheld because membership of Parliament did not create a fundamental or constitutional immunity from lawful preventive detention, and parliamentary privilege extended only to freedom from civil arrest. The detention orders were also not invalidated by the change of place of detention, which was authorised by a subsequent order, or by mala fides, as the materials did not disprove the detaining authority's proper satisfaction. en-us Wed, 27 Oct 1965 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 11 May 2024 10:31:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313994 A Presidential suspension order under Article 359 was construed strictly and did not bar petitions raising grounds outside the suspended fundamental rights; independent challenges to the detention scheme remained maintainable. Rule 30(1)(b) of the Defence of India Rules, 1962 was upheld because membership of Parliament did not create a fundamental or constitutional immunity from lawful preventive detention, and parliamentary privilege extended only to freedom from civil arrest. The detention orders were also not invalidated by the change of place of detention, which was authorised by a subsequent order, or by mala fides, as the materials did not disprove the detaining authority's proper satisfaction. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 27 Oct 1965 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313994