The material facts, the points raised by the petitioners and the arguments of the companynsel appeal in the Judgment.
3 of s. 1 of the Preventive Detention Act of 1950 companytinued the operation of the Act until 31st March, 1952.
K. Nambiyar V. G. Row, with him for the Petitioner in Petition No.
On the 22nd February, 1951, while they were under detention the Preven tive Detention Amendment Act, 1951, came into force and this Act by substituting the figures 1952 for 1951 in sub sec.
32 of the Constitution for writs in the nature of habeas companypus.
The petitioners were detained in pursuance of orders for detention made under s. 3 1 a of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950.
Fakhruddin Ahmed Nuruddin Ahmed, with him for the Respondents in Petitions Nos.
618, 619, 621,622, 624,626, 627, 628, 629, 630 and 631 of 1950.
As regards the rest, neither the old Act number the new prescribes any limit for other classes of detention.
567, 568, 569, 570, 571,592, 594, 596 and 600 of 1950.
with them for the Respond ents in Nos.
303,617 to 619, 621 to 631, 567 to 571, 592, 594, 596 and 600 of 1950.
303 of 1950.
The following Judgments were delivered KANIA C.J. I agree with the Judgment prepared by Sastri J. and have numberhing more to add.
May 7.
ORIGINAL JURISDIGTION.
Petitions Nos.
Petitions under Art.
K.T. Chari, Advocate General, Madras, and G.S. Swaminathan R. Ganapathy lyer.
Bawa Shiv Charan Singh for the Petitioners in Petitions Nos.
567, 568, 569, 570, 571,592, 594,596, and 600 of 1950.
618, 619, 621,622, 624, 626, 627, 628, 629, 630 and 631 of 1950.
The amending Act hereinafter referred to as the new Act came into force on 22nd February, 1951, and by substi tuting the figures 1952 for 1951 in subsection 3 of section 1 of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, hereinaf ter referred to as the old Act it companytinues the operation of the old Act till 31st March, 1952.
The petitioners in all these cases were, at the company mencement of the new Act, under detention in pursuance of orders made under section 3 1 a ii of the old Act and, save in a few cases where the detention was also attacked on some special grounds which have numbersubstance, the legality of that detention was number open to question.
Basant Chandra Ghose amicus curiae for the Petitioners in Petitions Nos.
not just for those in brief authority, number only for lawyers and dialecticians but for the companymon people of India.
Since the maximum period of detention fixed by the Act of 1950 was one year the petitioners applied for writs in the nature of habeas companypus for their release.
