BALMUKAND versus DIST. MAGISTRATE, DELHI & ANOTHER

BALMUKAND versus DIST. MAGISTRATE, DELHI & ANOTHER

The review of a detention order must take place within six months from the date of the original detention order, not from the date of its confirmation. Failure to review within this period renders the detention illegal.

Parties
Petitioner: Balmukand alias Balu; Respondent: District Magistrate, Delhi
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
17 August 1964
Procedural Posture
Habeas Corpus Petition Under Article 32 / Original Jurisdiction
Outcome
Petition granted
Legal Topics
Review of Detention Orders, Defence of India Rules, Personal Liberty
Constitutional Law Preventive Detention Review of Detention Orders Defence of India Rules Personal Liberty

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Balmukand alias Balu

Petitioner

District Magistrate, Delhi

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Habeas Corpus Petition Under Article 32 / Original Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the review of a detention order under Rule 30A of the Defence of India Rules must be done within six months from the date of the detention order or from the date of its confirmation

Ratio Decidendi

The review of a detention order must take place within six months from the date of the original detention order, not from the date of its confirmation. Failure to review within this period renders the detention illegal.

Court Disposition

Petition granted

Orders

  • The detention of the petitioner became illegal after expiry of six months from the date of the detention order as it was not reviewed within that period as required by Rule 30A(8).
  • The petitioner is to be set at liberty at once.