MASOOD ALAM ETC. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

MASOOD ALAM ETC. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

The second detention order, made without alleging any fresh facts after expiry of the first, is invalid under Section 14(2) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971, as only one order of detention can be made on a given set of facts; a fresh order on the same grounds is not permitted. Mere service of a detention order while the detenu is in custody does not, per se, invalidate the order. Grounds relevant to the object of the Act suffice even if they also attract Cr.P.C. provisions, provided the detaining authority is satisfied as required by the Act.

Parties
Petitioner: Masood Alam; Respondent: Union of India; Respondent: State of Uttar Pradesh; Respondents: Other Respondents (District Magistrate, Jail Superintendent, etc.)
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
11 January 1973
Procedural Posture
Writ Petition Under Article 32 / Final Judgment
Outcome
Petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Preventive Detention, Personal Liberty, Maintenance of Internal Security Act, Habeas Corpus
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Preventive Detention Personal Liberty Maintenance of Internal Security Act Habeas Corpus

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 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Masood Alam

Petitioner

Union of India

Respondent

State of Uttar Pradesh

Respondent

Other Respondents (District Magistrate, Jail Superintendent, etc.)

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Writ Petition Under Article 32 / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a fresh detention order can be issued without fresh facts after expiry or revocation of an earlier order under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971
  2. 2 Whether a second/renewed detention order is rendered mala fide when served while the detenu is already under custody for related reasons
  3. 3 Whether grounds for preventive detention are relevant despite also attracting Cr.P.C. provisions

Ratio Decidendi

The second detention order, made without alleging any fresh facts after expiry of the first, is invalid under Section 14(2) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971, as only one order of detention can be made on a given set of facts; a fresh order on the same grounds is not permitted. Mere service of a detention order while the detenu is in custody does not, per se, invalidate the order. Grounds relevant to the object of the Act suffice even if they also attract Cr.P.C. provisions, provided the detaining authority is satisfied as required by the Act.

Court Disposition

Petition dismissed

Orders

  • Writ petition seeking release under habeas corpus fails and is dismissed.