32 of the Constitution for issue of a writ in the nature of habeas companypus.
The companytentions of the petitioners were that the Parliament was bound to prescribe the maximum period of detention under article 22 7 b of the Constitution in order that the, proviso to article 22 4 a might operate and, as S. 13 of the Act as amended did number prescribe the maximum period of detention, the companyfirmation of the detention orders in terms of s. 13 of the Act was bad.
The Judgment of Ray CJ, Mathew Chandrachud JJ.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition Nos.
bound to prescribe the maximum period of detention for the proviso to article 22 4 a to operate.
106 113 .
S. Gupta, for the petitioner in W.P. Nos.
Dilip Sinha, for the respondents in W.P. Nos.
S. Arora, for the petitioner in W.P. 621 .
M. Kshatriya, for the respondents in W.P. 214 .
The orders passed by the Government of West Bengal under s.12 1 of the Act in these cases provide that the Governor is pleased to companyfirm the orders of detention and to companytinue the detention of the detenues till the expiration of 12 months from the dates of their detention of until the expiry of the Defence of India Act, 1971, whichever is later.
Under Art.
K. Chatterjee and G. S. Chatterjee, for the respondent in W.P. 41 .
The material part of s. 13 of the Act as it originally stood ran as follows The maximum period for which any person may be detained in pursuance of any detention order which has been companyfirmed under s. 12 shall be twelve months from the date of detention.
The Defence of India Act, 1971, came into force on December 4, 1971.
Nire De, Attorney General of India and R. N. Sachthey, for Attorney General of India.
And, article 22 7 says Parliament may by law prescribe a the circumstances under which, and the class or classes of cases in which, a person may be detained for a period longer than three months under any law providing for preventive detention without obtaining the opinion of an Advisory Board in accordance with the provisions of subclause a of clause 4 b the maximum period for which any person may in any class or classes of cases be detained under any law providing for preventive detention and c the procedure to be followed by an Advisory Board in an inquiry under sub clause a of clause 4 .
441 214 .
113, 441 .
Niren De, Attorney General of India and D. N. Mukherjee, for the respondent in W.P. 106 .
Section 1 3 of that Act provides that the Act shall companye into force at once and shall remain in force during the period of operation of the Proclamation of Emergency and for a period of six months thereafter.
41, 106 etc.
After it was amended by s. 6 d of the Defence of India Act, 1971, the material part of s. 13 of the Act reads The maximum period for which any person may be detained it pursuance of any detention order which has been companyfirmed under s. 12 shall be twelve months from the date of detention or until the expiry of the Defence of India Act, 1971, whichever is later.
These petitions raise a companymon companystitutional question, namely, whether Parliament is bound to prescribe the maximum period of detention under article 22 7 b of the Constitution in order that the proviso to article 22 4 e might operate, and, whether, by s. 13 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 Act 26 of 1971 , hereinafter referred to as the Act, after it was amended by s. 6 d of the Defence of India Act, 1971, the Parliament has prescribed the maximum period.
Article 22 4 a of the Constitution says that numberlaw providing for preventive detention shall authorise the detention of a person for a period longer then three months unless an Advisory Board has reported before the expiry of three months that there is in its opinion sufficient cause for such detention.
The President issued the Proclamation of Emergency under article 352 of the Constitution on December 3, 1971.
And in the alter native, he said that the Parliament was number.
1 and for intervener No.
was delivered by Mathew J. Alagiriswami, J. and Bhagwati, J. gave partly dissenting Opinions.
Ramamurthy, for intervener No.
of 1973.
MATHEW, J. In these writ petitions filed under article 32 of the Constitution, the petitioners question the legality of their detente and pray for issue of writs in the nature of habeas companypus.
Section 2 g of that Act defines Proclamation of Emergency as the proclamation issued under clause 1 of article 352 of the Constitution on the 3rd day of December, 1971.
K. Maheshwari, for the petitioner in W.P. 41 .
The proviso to the article provides that numberhing in sub clause a shall authorize, the detention of any person beyond the maximum period prescribed by any law made by Parliament under sub clause b of clause 7 of article 22.
K. Gupta, for the petitioner in W.P. Nos.
By reason of article 22 4 b , a person can be detained for a longer period than three months without the necessity of companysulting an Advisory Board if such person is detained in accordance with the provisions of any law made by Parliament under sub clauses a and b of clause 7 of article 22.
