.HANS MULLER OF NURENBURG versus SUPERINTENDENT, PRESIDENCY JAIL, CALCUTTA AND OTHERS.

.HANS MULLER OF NURENBURG versus SUPERINTENDENT, PRESIDENCY JAIL, CALCUTTA AND OTHERS.

Section 3(1)(b) of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, and section 3(2)(c) of the Foreigners Act, 1946, are intra vires the Constitution, as Parliament has legislative competence under Entries 9 and 10, Union List. The provisions do not violate Articles 14, 21, or 22 as required procedure and classification are observed. The distinction between expulsion and extradition is clear, with separate procedures and no statutory or constitutional violation. No evidence of bad faith by the State Government is shown in making the detention order.

Parties
Petitioner: Hans Muller of Nurenburg; Respondent: Superintendent, Presidency Jail, Calcutta and others
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
23 February 1955
Procedural Posture
Original Jurisdiction (article 32 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus) / Judgment on Merits
Outcome
petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Preventive Detention, Foreigners/expulsion, Legislative Competence, Habeas Corpus, Good Faith of Government Action
Constitutional Law Immigration Law Administrative Law Preventive Detention Foreigners/expulsion Legislative Competence Habeas Corpus Good Faith of Government Action

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 5 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hans Muller of Nurenburg

Petitioner

Superintendent, Presidency Jail, Calcutta and others

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Original Jurisdiction (article 32 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus) / Judgment on Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether section 3(1)(b) of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 is ultra vires the Constitution as it allegedly contravenes Articles 14, 21 and 22
  2. 2 Whether Parliament had legislative competence to enact such a provision
  3. 3 Whether, even if intra vires, the detention order was passed in bad faith

Ratio Decidendi

Section 3(1)(b) of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, and section 3(2)(c) of the Foreigners Act, 1946, are intra vires the Constitution, as Parliament has legislative competence under Entries 9 and 10, Union List. The provisions do not violate Articles 14, 21, or 22 as required procedure and classification are observed. The distinction between expulsion and extradition is clear, with separate procedures and no statutory or constitutional violation. No evidence of bad faith by the State Government is shown in making the detention order.

Court Disposition

petition dismissed

Orders

  • Petition dismissed.