P. Malhotra, B. Parthasarathy, J. B. Dadachanji, 0.
C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, for the appellant in Cr.
The judgment of P. B. Gajendragadkar, A. Sarkar, K. N. Wanchoo, M. Hidayatullah,B. Gajendragadkar, K. Subba Rao, J. delivered a dissenting Opinion.
S. Peerbhoy A. Desai, M. Rajagopalan and K. R. Choudhari, for interveners Nos.
P. Lal, for intervener number 8.
September 2, 1963.
GAJENDRAGADKAR, J. This group of 26 criminal appeals has been placed for hearing and disposal before a special Constitutional Bench, because the appeals companystituting the group raise two companymon important questions of Constitutional law.
79 and 80.
Nine of these appeals have been preferred against the decisions of the Punjab High Court, whereas seventeen have been preferred against the decisions of the Bombay High Court.
Both the Punjab and the Bombay High Courts have held against the appellants.
Ranganadham Chetty and A. F. Rangam, for intervener No.
A. No.
C. Chatterjee, Narayan Gooptu, Tapesh Roy, D. P.Singh, K. Ramamurthi, R. K. Garg and S. C. Agarwal, for intervener No.
the said High Court took a companytrary view and directed the release of the detenues who had moved it under s. 491 1 b of the Code.
352 of the Constitution.
S. R. Chari, Narayan Gooptu, Tapesh Roy, D. P. Singh, K. Ramamurthi, R. K. Garg and S. C. Agarwal, for intervener No.
51 of 1962 hereinafter called the Act and Rule 36 1 b under which they have been detained are companystitutionally invalid, because they companytravene their fundamental rights under Articles 14, 21 and 22 4 , 5 7 of the Constitution, and so, they claimed that an order should be passed in their favour directing the respective State Governments to set them at liberty.
All the appellants are detenues who have been detained respectively by the Punjab and the Maharashtra State Governments under Rule 30 1 b of the Defence of India Rules hereinafter called the Rules made by the Central Government in exercise of the powers companyferred on it by section 3 of the Defence of India Ordinance, 1962 No.
4 of 1962 hereinafter called the Ordinance .
On the 8th September, 1962, the Chinese aggressively attacked the numberthern border of India and that companystituted a threat to the security of India.
Their companytention was that s. 3 2 15 1 and s. 40 of the Defence of India Act, 1962 No.
That is why on the 26th October, 1962, the President issued a Proclamation under Art.
1618, 1759 and 1872 of 1963 Sher Singh Negi v. District Magistrate, Kanpur Anr.,
It is because the questions raised are important and the answers given by the different High Courts have disclosed a sharp difference of opinion that a Special Bench has been companystituted to deal with these appeals.
They applied to the Punjab and the Bombay High Courts respectively under section 491 1 b of the Code of Criminal Procedure and alleged that they had been improperly and illegally detained.
C. Kasliwal, Advocate General, Rajasthan, R. H.Dhebar, N. Sachthey, for intervener No.
Sen and P. K. Bose, for intervener No.
On the same day, the Ordinance was promulgated by the President.
P. Varma, for intervener No.
65 of 1963 .
Adhikari, Advocate General, Madhya Pradesh and N.Shroff, for intervener No.
Meanwhile, when similar petitions were made before the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Cases Nos.
If the two principal questions are answered in favour of the detenues, a third question would arise and that relates to the validity of the impugned sections of the Act and the relevant statutory Rules.
K. Daphtary, Attorney General, H. N. Sanyal, Solicitor General, S. V. Gupte, Additional Solicitor General, N.Sachthey and R. H. Dhebar, for intervener No.
6 of 1962 promulgated on November 3, 1962.
This Ordinance was amended by Ordinance No.
K. Daphtary, Attorney General, N. S. Bindra, B. R. G. Achar, R. N. Sachthey and R. H. Dhebar, for the respondents in Cr.
1 Naunit Lal, for intervener No.
C. Chatterjee, and Janardan Sharma, for the appellant in Cr.
On this day, the President issued the Order under Art.
109 of 1963 .
T. Sule, Jitendra Sharma and Janardan Sharma, for the appellants in Cr.
12, 14, 16, 18 and 37 .
111 and 114 to 126 of 1963 and for the Detenue Interveners Nos.
359 1 , suspending the rights of citizens to move any Court for the enforcement of the rights companyferred by Arts.
By this amendment, for the words and figures article 21 the words and figures articles 14 and 21 were substituted.
On November 6, 1962, the rules framed by the Central Government were published.
21 and 22 of the Constitution for the period during which the proclamation of emergency issued on October 26, 1962 would be in force.
A. No.
A. Nos.
Then followed an amendment of the Presidential Order on November 11 1962.
On December, 6, 1962, Rule 30 as originally framed was amended and Rule 30 A added.
Last came the Act on December 12 1962.
C. Setalvad, N. C. Chatterjee, A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, Mohan Kumaramangalam, C. B. Agarwala, Sarjoo Prasad, D. Prem, A. S. R. Chari, S. G. Patwardhan, W. S. Barlingay, Etharajalu Naidu, Veda Vyas, Raghubir Singh, K. T .
Sule, Asif Ansari, Hardayal Hardy, Bawa Shiv Charan Singh, S. N. Mukherjee, Durgabhai Deshmukh, M. S. K. Sastri, G. B. Rai, Ganpat Rai, D. N. Mukherjee, A. N. Sinha, Udayaratnam, K. V. Raghnatha Reddy, Janardhan Sharma, K. R. Choudhury, B. P. Maheshwari, I. B. Goyal, I. K. Nag, Y. Kumar, Hardev Singh,, I. Khowaja, S. S. Shukla, K. K. lain, Bishambar Lal Khanna, S. Murthi, P. K. Chakravarti, P. K. Chatterjee, A. George Pudussary, Girish Chandra Mathur, Udai Pratap Singh,Yogeshwar Prasad,M. R. Krishna Pillai, B. D.Sharma, K. Gupta, T. S. Venkataraman, M. Veerappa,T.R.Ramachandra, C. Prasad, Santosh Chatterjee,N.N. Keshwani, K. Jayaram, Ganapathy Iyer, Thyagarajan, R. Vasudeva Pillai, R. V. S. Mani, S. C. Majumdar, Shaukat Hussain, K. Baldev Mehta, Mohan Behari Lal, Sadhu Singh, V. G. Row, S. N. Kakkar, S. Kapur, Parthasarathy, Shanti Swarup Bhatnagar, K. L. Mehta, Satish Mehta, Brij Kishore Prasad, Ali Ahmad, V. A. Syeid Muhammad, Narayanarayan Gooptu, Tapesh Roy, Madhan Bhaittia, Ajit Singh Banis and Brij Raj Kishore, J. B. Dada chanji O. C. Mathur, Ravinder Narain, D. P. Singh, M. K. Ramamurthi, R. K. Garg, and S. C. Agarwal, for the appellant in Cr.
A. No.
80 of 1963 .
K. Daphtary, Attorney General, L. K. Kaushal, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, D. D. Chaudhuri, R. N. Sachthey and R. H. Dhebar, for the respondent in Cr.
A. No.
155, 102, 108, 105, 104, 101 and 107 of 1963 and judgment and order dated February 1963 of the same High Court in Criminal Misc.
S. R. Chari, D. P. Singh, M. K. Ramamurthi, R. K. Garg and S. C. Agarwal for the appellant in Cr.
80 of 1963 .
A. No.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated April 3, 1963, of the Maharashtra High Court Nagpur Bench in Criminal Application No.
Appeals from the judgment and order dated May 31, 1963 of the Maharashtra High Court in Criminal Applications Nos.
Appeals from the judgment and order dated May 31, 1963 of the Maharashtra High Court in Criminal Applications Nos.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated February 21, 1963 of the Punjab High Court in Criminal Misc.
86 of 1963 .
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated March 26, 1963, of the Punjab High Court in Criminal Mis.
271, 265, 270, 267, 219, 220, 269, 264, 263, 266 and 273 of 1963.
Hardev Singh and Y. Kumar, for the appellants in Cr.
A. Nos.
87 to 93 of 1963 .
99 of 1963.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
65 of 1963.
86 to 93 of 1963 .
A. Nos.
217, 218 and 114 of 1963.
D. Kaushal, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, D.Chaudhri, R. N. Sachthey and R. H. Dhebar, for the respondent in Cr.
Criminal Appeals Nos.
Criminal Appeals Nos.
Criminal Appeals Nos.
Criminal Appeal No.
109 to 111 of 1963.
11 of 1963.
86 to 93 of 1963.
80 of 1963.
114 to 126 of 1963.
186 of 1963.
S. R. Chari, 0.
