SHYAMAL CHAKRABORTY versus COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, CALCUTTA & ANR.

SHYAMAL CHAKRABORTY versus COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, CALCUTTA & ANR.

The acts detailed in the grounds of detention—involving armed rioting, assaults on policemen, and endangering human lives—were actions prejudicial to public order, affecting the community at large. The detaining authority's conclusion was justified. There was no breach of Section 7 as the representations were made only after the Advisory Board had dealt with the matter and the State was dealing with them when notice issued.

Parties
Petitioner: Shyamal Chakraborty; Respondents: Commissioner of Police, Calcutta & Anr.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
04 August 1969
Procedural Posture
Writ Petition (habeas Corpus) Under Article 32 / Original Jurisdiction
Outcome
Petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Preventive Detention Act, 1950, Public Order, Article 32 Habeas Corpus, Advisory Board Detention Procedure
Preventive Detention Constitutional Law Preventive Detention Act, 1950 Public Order Article 32 Habeas Corpus Advisory Board Detention Procedure

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shyamal Chakraborty

Petitioner

Commissioner of Police, Calcutta & Anr.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Writ Petition (habeas Corpus) Under Article 32 / Original Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was a breach of Section 7 of the Preventive Detention Act for non-consideration of representation by the Government.
  2. 2 Whether offences under the Indian Penal Code can form grounds for preventive detention under 'public order.'
  3. 3 Whether the grounds furnished to the detenu relate to public order or merely maintenance of order.

Ratio Decidendi

The acts detailed in the grounds of detention—involving armed rioting, assaults on policemen, and endangering human lives—were actions prejudicial to public order, affecting the community at large. The detaining authority's conclusion was justified. There was no breach of Section 7 as the representations were made only after the Advisory Board had dealt with the matter and the State was dealing with them when notice issued.

Court Disposition

Petition dismissed

Orders

  • Petition dismissed.