Judgment

S. K. DAS, J. : This is an appeal by special leave, and the appellant is Puran Lal Lakhanpal. On July 21, 1956, the Government of India in the Ministry of Home Affairs passed an order of preventive detention against the appellant in which it was stated, inter alia, that with a view to preventing the appellant from acting in a manner prejudicial to the security of India and the relations of India with foreign powers, it was necessary to make an order against the appellant. The order then concluded.

"Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers vested in the Central Government by Cl. (a) (i) of sub-s. (1) of S. 3 of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 (Act No. 4 of 1950) as amended, the Central Government hereby orders that the said Shri Puran Lal Lakhanpal, son of Shri Diwan Chand Sharma, be detained."

2. The appellant was arrested and taken in custody on the same date. On July 24, 1956, the grounds of detention were communicated to the appellant under S. 7 of the Preventive Detention Act No. 4 of 1950, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The case of the appellant was then sent to an Advisory Board constituted under S. 8 of the Act, and the Advisory Board having reported that there was, in its opinion, sufficient cause for detention of the appellant, the Central Government confirmed the order of detention on August 20, 1956, and stated further that the appellant "shall continue in detention for a period of twelve months from the date of his detention." This order was passed under sub-s. (1) of S. 11 of the Act.

3. Before that date, however, the appellant moved the Punjab High Court as also this Court challenging the legality of his detention and asked for the issue of a writ in the nature of a writ of haberas corpus. The petition to this Court was dismissed and as nothing turns upon that petition, no further reference need be made to it. In the petition to the Punjab High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the appellant was permitted to urge an additional ground to the effect that sub-s. (1) of S. 11 of the Act was unconstitutional inasmuch as it offended against Art. 22 (4) (a) of the constitution. This constitutional point was referred to and decided by a Division Bench of the Punjab High Court by an order dated September 24, 1956. The High Court held that sub-s. (1) of S. 11 of the Act was neither repugnant to nor inconsistent with the provisions of Art. 22 (4) of the Constitution. A single Judge of the High Court then dealt with the petition of the appellant on merits and dismissed it by an order D/- 26-9-1956. The appellant moved the Punjab High Court unsuccessfully for leave to appeal to this Court. He then moved this Court, and obtained special leave to appeal from the aforesaid orders of the Punjab High Court dated September 24, and September 26, 1956, respectively.

4. We heard the appellant, who argued his case in person, on May 22, 23 and 24, 1957. At the conclusion of the arguments on the last day of the term before the commencement of the vacation, we intimated to the appellant the majority decision of the Court that his appeal was dismissed, but stated that reasons for the decision would be given later. These reasons we now propose to give in the paragraphs that follow.

5. The first and foremost point which the appellant has urged in support of his appeal is the constitutional point, that is, the validity of sub-s. (1) of S. 11 of the Act. The argument of the appellant is that sub-s. (1) of S. 11 of the Act does not conform to the constitutional mandate given by sub-cl. (a) of Cl. (4) of Art. 22 of the Constitution. Therefore, our primary duty is "to lay the Article of the Constitution which is invoked beside the statute which is challenged and to decide whether the latter squares with the former". Article 22 of the Constitution, in so far as it is relevant for our purposes, is in these terms:

"22. (1) ...... ....

(2) .... .... ..

(3) Nothing in Cls. (1) and (2) shall apply -

(a) to any person who for the time b