S. KRISHNAN AND OTHERS versus THE STATE OF MADRAS

S. KRISHNAN AND OTHERS versus THE STATE OF MADRAS

Sections 9 and 12 of the Preventive Detention (Amendment) Act, 1951 do not contravene Article 22(4) of the Constitution and are not void, as the Act was considered as a law made substantially in accordance with sub-clauses (a) and (b) of Article 22(7), and the duration fixed by extending the operation of the old Act to 1st April 1952 provided an over-all time limit.

Parties
Petitioners: S. Krishnan and Others; Respondent: State of Madras; Intervener: Union of India; Respondent: State of Assam
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
07 May 1951
Procedural Posture
Petitions Under Article 32 of the Constitution for Writs in the Nature of Habeas Corpus / Original Jurisdiction
Outcome
Petitions dismissed (majority), dissent by Bose J.
Legal Topics
Preventive Detention, Fundamental Rights, Validity of Statutes
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Preventive Detention Fundamental Rights Validity of Statutes

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

S. Krishnan and Others

Petitioners

State of Madras

Respondent

Union of India

Intervener

State of Assam

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Petitions Under Article 32 of the Constitution for Writs in the Nature of Habeas Corpus / Original Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether sections 9 and 12 of the Preventive Detention (Amendment) Act, 1951 contravened Article 22(4) of the Constitution
  2. 2 Whether the Act was invalid for not fixing a maximum period of detention
  3. 3 Whether detentions under the earlier Act could be continued under the amended Act for more than one year

Ratio Decidendi

Sections 9 and 12 of the Preventive Detention (Amendment) Act, 1951 do not contravene Article 22(4) of the Constitution and are not void, as the Act was considered as a law made substantially in accordance with sub-clauses (a) and (b) of Article 22(7), and the duration fixed by extending the operation of the old Act to 1st April 1952 provided an over-all time limit.

Court Disposition

Petitions dismissed (majority), dissent by Bose J.

Orders

  • No release ordered; detentions upheld as valid under the Act.