FAGU SHAW, ETC., E.TC. versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL

FAGU SHAW, ETC., E.TC. versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL

By majority, the Supreme Court held that there is no constitutional requirement mandating Parliament to prescribe the maximum period of detention under Article 22(7)(b) of the Constitution. Section 13 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971, as amended, validly prescribes a maximum period, and making the period contingent on the expiry of the Defence of India Act or the existence of an emergency does not render it unconstitutional or amount to abdication of Parliamentary power. The period may legitimately be fixed with reference to an event such as the expiration of the Defence of India Act. The petitions challenging the constitutionality of s.13 on grounds of lack of maximum...

Parties
Petitioner: Fagu Shaw; Respondent: The State of West Bengal
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
20 December 1973
Procedural Posture
Writ Petition (original Jurisdiction) Under Article 32 / Judgment on Merits
Outcome
Petitions dismissed (by majority); contentions of the petitioners overruled; petitions to be listed before appropriate bench for disposal.
Legal Topics
Preventive Detention, Interpretation of Constitutional Provisions, Maximum Period of Detention, Maintenance of Internal Security Act
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Preventive Detention Interpretation of Constitutional Provisions Maximum Period of Detention Maintenance of Internal Security Act

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fagu Shaw

Petitioner

The State of West Bengal

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Writ Petition (original Jurisdiction) Under Article 32 / Judgment on Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Parliament was bound to prescribe the maximum period of detention under Article 22(7)(b) of the Constitution of India.
  2. 2 Whether Section 13 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971, prescribes a 'maximum period' of detention as contemplated in Article 22(7)(b).
  3. 3 Whether the delegation to determine the duration of detention to the executive is constitutionally valid.

Ratio Decidendi

By majority, the Supreme Court held that there is no constitutional requirement mandating Parliament to prescribe the maximum period of detention under Article 22(7)(b) of the Constitution. Section 13 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971, as amended, validly prescribes a maximum period, and making the period contingent on the expiry of the Defence of India Act or the existence of an emergency does not render it unconstitutional or amount to abdication of Parliamentary power. The period may legitimately be fixed with reference to an event such as the expiration of the Defence of India Act. The petitions challenging the constitutionality of s.13 on grounds of lack of maximum...

Court Disposition

Petitions dismissed (by majority); contentions of the petitioners overruled; petitions to be listed before appropriate bench for disposal.

Orders

  • The contentions of the petitioners are overruled.
  • The petitions be listed before the appropriate Bench for disposal.