ABDUL AZIZ versus THE DISTT. MAGISTRATE BURDWAN & ANR.

ABDUL AZIZ versus THE DISTT. MAGISTRATE BURDWAN & ANR.

The murders attributed to the petitioner were committed with the object of promoting the cause of an extremist party, resulting in general insecurity affecting public order; a detention order can be validly passed during pendency of prosecution; delay in considering representation was satisfactorily explained; Parliament has legislative competence to provide for preventive detention for maintenance of public order under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971.

Parties
Petitioner: Abdul Aziz; Respondents: District Magistrate Burdwan & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
11 October 1972
Procedural Posture
Writ Petition Under Article 32 of the Constitution / Final Decision by Supreme Court
Outcome
Petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Maintenance of Internal Security Act, Preventive Detention for Public Order, Scope of Legislative Power Under Entry 3 List III, Delay in Consideration of Representation, Writ of Habeas Corpus
Constitutional Law Preventive Detention Maintenance of Internal Security Act Preventive Detention for Public Order Scope of Legislative Power Under Entry 3 List III Delay in Consideration of Representation Writ of Habeas Corpus

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Abdul Aziz

Petitioner

District Magistrate Burdwan & Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Writ Petition Under Article 32 of the Constitution / Final Decision by Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether alleged murders constituted acts prejudicial to public order under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971
  2. 2 Whether detention order during pendency of prosecution is valid
  3. 3 Whether delay in consideration of representation vitiates detention

Ratio Decidendi

The murders attributed to the petitioner were committed with the object of promoting the cause of an extremist party, resulting in general insecurity affecting public order; a detention order can be validly passed during pendency of prosecution; delay in considering representation was satisfactorily explained; Parliament has legislative competence to provide for preventive detention for maintenance of public order under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971.

Court Disposition

Petition dismissed

Orders

  • Petition dismissed; detention order upheld.