Judgment

Kania, C.J.I.- I agree with the judgment prepared by Sastri J. & have nothing more to add.

2. Patanjali Sastri J. - The common question which arises for consideration in these petitions is whether certain provisions of the Preventive Detention (Amendment) Act, 1951, purporting to amend the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, so as to authorise detention of the petitioners to be continued beyond the expiry of one year are ultra vires & inoperative.

3. The Amending Act (hereinafter referred to as the new Act) came into force on 22- 2-1951, & by Sub-stituting the figures "1952" for "1951" in Sub-- S.(3) of S. 1, Preventive Detention Act, 1950, (hereinafter referred to as the old Act it continues the operation of the old Act till 31-3-1952.

4. The petitioners in all these case were, at the commencement of the new Act, under detention in pursuance of orders made under S. 3 (1) (a) (ii) of the old Act & save in a few cases where the detention was also attacked on some special grounds which have no Sub-stance, the legality of that detention was not open to question. But such detention having commenced more than a year before the date of bearing of these petitions, the petitioners wou