Skip to content


Fendan Naha Vs. State of West Bengal - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberWrit Petition No. 2053 of 1973
Judge
Reported inAIR1975SC1005; (1975)3SCC30; [1975]1SCR483; 1974(6)LC460(SC)
ActsConstitution of India - Article 22(7); Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 - Sections 13
AppellantFendan Naha
RespondentState of West Bengal
Advocates: Shiv Pujan Singh, Adv
Excerpt:
.....pasayat & p. sathasivam, jj] workman daily wager, peon attached to public prosecutor is not a workman, as law department cannot by any stretch of imagination be considered as industry. - the duration of maximum period of detention with reference to an event like the cessation of the period of emergency is not indefinite......detention. the petitioner submits that the authorities have bodily lifted the section fixing the maximum period without applying their mind as to the period of detention.4. this court in fagu shaw etc. v. the state of west bengal : 1974crilj486 held that the maximum period mentioned in section 13 of the act as amended by section 6(d) of the defence of india act, 1971 is a constitutionally valid provision.5. that section states that the maximum period for which any person can be detained in pursuance of any detention which has been confirmed under section 12 shall be 12 months from the date of detention or until the expiry of the defence of india act whichever is later.6. this court construed section 13 of the act to be valid with reference to article 22(7)(b) of the constitution. the.....
Judgment:

A.N. Ray, C.J.

1. The petitioner in a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution challenges the order of detention dated 15 March. 1973.

2. The order is : 'in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) read with Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act 'hereinafter referred to as the Act' directing the petitioner to be detained'.

3. The petitioner challenges the order on the ground that it is the duty of the authority to fix the period of detention after carefully examining the circumstances requiring detention. The petitioner submits that the authorities have bodily lifted the section fixing the maximum period without applying their mind as to the period of detention.

4. This Court in Fagu Shaw etc. v. The State of West Bengal : 1974CriLJ486 held that the maximum period mentioned in Section 13 of the Act as amended by Section 6(d) of the Defence of India Act, 1971 is a Constitutionally valid provision.

5. That section states that the maximum period for which any person can be detained in pursuance of any detention which has been confirmed under Section 12 shall be 12 months from the date of detention or until the expiry of the Defence of India Act whichever is later.

6. This Court construed Section 13 of the Act to be valid with reference to Article 22(7)(b) of the Constitution. The maximum period under Article 22(7)(b) can be fixed with reference to the duration of an emergency. The expiry of the Defence of India Act is dependent upon the revocation of emergency. The duration of maximum period of detention with reference to an event like the cessation of the period of emergency is not indefinite.

7. The order of detention in the present case does not suffer from any Constitutional infirmity. The authorities have applied their mind. The authorities have detained for the maximum period mentioned in the statute.

8. The petition is dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //