Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Apr-28-1976
Reported in : AIR1976SC1207; 1976CriLJ945; (1976)2SCC521; SuppSCR172; 1976(8)LC610(SC)
..... include sub-section (c) in section 3(1), by which be right to detain was given as against smugglers and offenders under the foreign exchange regulation act, 1947. on november 16, 1974 the president issued a declaration under article 359(1) suspending the right of persons detained under section 3(1)(c) of ..... could secure his release. as pointed out by holdsworth in vol. 1 of his 'history of english law', 'its position as the most efficient protector of the liberty of the subject was unquestioned after the great rebellion'. it was for this reason that men began to assign as its direct ancestor ..... article 21 i do not think so. when the arrested person makes such an application, he seeks to enforce a statutory obligation imposed on the police officer and a statutory right created in his favour by section 57 and that would not be barred, because what is suspended by a presidential ..... examining the question as to whether the citizen is, in substance, seeking to enforce any of the specified fundamental rights'. vide makhan singh v. state of punjab : 1964crilj217 . therefore, there can be no doubt that in view of the presidential order which mentions article 21, the detenus would have no locus ..... . so let us examine the consequences of the acceptance of the above argument. this would mean that if any official, even a head constable of police, capriciously or maliciously, arrests a person and detains him indefinitely without any authority of law, the aggrieved person would not be able to seek any .....Tag this Judgment!