P. L. LAKHANPAL versus THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR.

P. L. LAKHANPAL versus THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR.

Section 8(1) proviso of the Jammu and Kashmir Preventive Detention Act, 2011 is not unconstitutional in view of the Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order, 1954, and clause (c) added to Article 35 of the Constitution. The exception engrafted by clause (c) means such preventive detention laws inconsistent with Part III will remain valid for five years. Thus, Articles 21 and 22 cannot be invoked by the detenu so long as the Act remains in force and within the five-year period. The order detaining the petitioner and withholding grounds was valid and constitutional.

Parties
Petitioner: P. L. Lakhanpal; Respondent: The State of Jammu and Kashmir; Intervener: Union of India
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
20 December 1955
Procedural Posture
Original Petition (habeas Corpus Under Article 32 of the Constitution) / Final Judgment by Supreme Court
Outcome
Application dismissed; rule discharged.
Legal Topics
Preventive Detention, Fundamental Rights, Application of the Constitution to Jammu and Kashmir, Personal Liberty
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Preventive Detention Fundamental Rights Application of the Constitution to Jammu and Kashmir 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

P. L. Lakhanpal

Petitioner

The State of Jammu and Kashmir

Respondent

Union of India

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Original Petition (habeas Corpus Under Article 32 of the Constitution) / Final Judgment by Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether section 8(1) proviso of the Jammu and Kashmir Preventive Detention Act, 2011, as applied by the Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order, 1954, violates fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution
  2. 2 Whether the non-supply of grounds of detention violates the detained person's fundamental rights
  3. 3 Effect of the addition of clause (c) to Article 35 of the Constitution in relation to inconsistent preventive detention laws

Ratio Decidendi

Section 8(1) proviso of the Jammu and Kashmir Preventive Detention Act, 2011 is not unconstitutional in view of the Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order, 1954, and clause (c) added to Article 35 of the Constitution. The exception engrafted by clause (c) means such preventive detention laws inconsistent with Part III will remain valid for five years. Thus, Articles 21 and 22 cannot be invoked by the detenu so long as the Act remains in force and within the five-year period. The order detaining the petitioner and withholding grounds was valid and constitutional.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; rule discharged.

Orders

  • The writ petition is dismissed.
  • The rule nisi is discharged.