Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2nd September, 1963
P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, A.K. SARKAR, K. SUBBA RAO, K.N. WANCHOO, M. HIDAYATULLAH, K.C. DAS GUPTA AND J.C. SHAH, JJ.
Makhan Singh Tarsikka, Appellant
Versus
The State of Punjab, Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 80 of 1963.; Criminal Appeals Nos. 86 to 93 of 1963.
1. Shamsher Singh Josh (In Cr. A. No. 86 of 1963)
2. Gurbux Singh Atta (In Cr. A. No. 87 of 1963)
3. Dhanpat Rai Nahar (In Cr. A. No. 88 of 1963)
4. Dalip Singh (In Cr. A. No. 89 of 1963)
5. Mota Singh (In Cr. A. No. 90 of 1963)
6. Darshan Singh Jhabal (In Cr. A. No. 91 of 1963)
7. Chanan Singh Dhut (In Cr. A. No. 92 of 1963)
8. Karnail Singh Fida (In Cr. A. No. 93 of 1963), Appellants
Versus
The State of Punjab (In all the Appeals), Respondent.
(3) Criminal Appeals Nos. 109 to 111 of 1963.
1. Shrimati Godavari Shamrao Parulekar (In Cr. A. No. 109 of 1963)
2. Shamrao Vishnu Parulekar (In Cr. A. No. 110 of 1963)
3. Pralhad Krishna Kurane (in Cr. A. No.111 of 1963), Appellants
Versus
State of Maharashtra and others (In all the appeals), Respondents.
(4) Criminal Appeals No. 114 to 126 of 1963.
1. Shripad Yeshwant Kolhatkar (In Cr. A. No. 114 of 1963)
2. Pandurang Bhaskar Ranganekar (In Cr. A. No. 115 of 1963)
3. Vishnu Bhanu Doiphode (In Cr. A. No. 116 of 1963)
4. Kakaji Krishnaji Kadam (In Cr. A. No. 117 of 1963)
5. Bapurao Dhondiba Jagtap (In Cr. A. No. 118 of 1963)
6. Smt. Vimal Balchandra Ranadive (In Cr. A. No. 119 of 1963)
7. Smt. Ahliya Pandurang Ranganekar (In Cr. A. No. 120 of 1963)
8. Vithal Bansilal Chaudhari (In Cr. A. No. 121 of 1963)
9. Samual Augustine (In Cr. A. No. 122 of 1963)
10. Govind Pandharinath Pansare (In Cr. A No. 123 of 1963)
11. Laxmikant Kashinath Oak (In Cr. A. No. 124 of 1963 382
12. Dr. Anant Bhaurao Sawant (In Cr. A. No. 125 of 1963)
13. Shivgonda Pirgonda Patil (In Cr. A. No. 126 of 1963), Appellants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others (In all the appeals), Respondents.
(5) Criminal Appeal No. 65 of 1963.
Ardhendu Bhushan Bardhan, Appellant
Versus
D. H. Deshmukh and another, Respondents.
Advocates Appeared
1. Attorney-General for India (In Cr. A. Nos. 65, 80 and 86 to 93 of 1963); 2 to 8 : Advocates-General for the States of Assam, Bengal, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Madras, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh (In Cr. A. No. 65 of 1963) 9. M. P. Gaikwaid. 10. C. D. Chaoudhari. 11. Smt. Karuna Chaudhari. 12. B. T. Ranadive. 13. S. G. Madane. 14. R. S. Patil. 15. F. S. Dawkhar. 16. N. L. Malusare. 17. D. N. Bhonsale. 18. D. T. Jayabhave. 19. R. S. Nagre. 20. N. N. Kale. 21. M. G. Mankar. 22. S. J. Purswami. 3. R. A. Chikne. 24. B. K. Khopkar. 25. R. D. Phadke. 26. P. C. Balkrishnan. 27. D. S. Vaidya. 28. L. B. Dhangar. 29. S. S. Kabul. 30. B. M. Narvekar. 31. D. P. Satur. 32. R. S. Gupte. 33. L. S. Kom. 34. M. B. Momin. 35. B. M. Chitre. 36. V. L. Sankhe. 37. P. B. Dhonde. 38. Bakshi Ram. 39. Sohan Singh Josh. 40. Gurcharan Singh Randhawa. 41. Hari Singh. 42. Gurucharan Singh. 43. Raghubir Singh Jhakaar. 44. Satwant Singh. 45. Amarmit Singh. 46. Fauj Singh, Bhullar 47. Bishan Singh. 48. Chanan Singh Barar. 49. Hazara Singh Hamdam. 50. Rachhpal Singh. 51. Sarwan Singh Cheema. 52. Jagtar Singh Khambra. 53. Harnam Singh Chamak. 54. Ajit Singh Manakpuri. 55. Rajinder Singh Sarinh. 56. Des Raj Chadah. 57. Dr. Bhag Singh. 58. Mange Ram Vats. 59. Hardit Singh Bhatal. 60. Dalip Singh. 61. Bahadur Lal. 62. Om Prakash. 63. Balram Krishan. 64. Shyam Lal. 65. R. K. Bharolian. 66. Kishorilal 67. Vidya Dev. 68. Gurbaksh Singh Dakota. 69. Smt. Kamal Basu on behalf of Jyoti Basu. 70. Smt. Rabia Khatoon on behalf of Syed Sahadullah. 71. P. Ramamurthi. 72. V. P. Chintan. 73. R. Umanath 74. A. Balasubramaniam. 75. K. R. Narayanan. 76. N. Sankariah. 77. M. R. Venkataraman. 78. K. Ramani. 79. George Fernandes. 80. Janardan Chintaman Upadhye. 9 to 80 (Detenues) : (In Cr. A. No. 65 of 1963) 81. Advocate-General for the State of Orissa (In Cr. A. No. 65 of 1963), Interveners.
Criminal Appeals Nos. 80, 86 to 93, 109 to 111, 114 to 126 and 65 of 1963.
M/s. M. C. Setalvad, N. C. Chatterjee, A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, S. Mohan Kumaramangalam, C. B. Agarwala, Sarjoo Prasad, D. R. Prem, A. S. R. Chari, S. G. Patwardhan, Dr. W. S. Barlingay, Etharajalu Naidu, Veda Vyas and Raghbir Singh, Senior Advocates, (M/s. K. T. Sule, Asif Ansari, Hardayal Hardy, Bawa Shiv Charan Singh, S. N. Mukherjee, Mrs. Durgabai Deshmukh, M. S. K. Sastri, G. B. Pai, Ganpat Rai, D. N. Mukherjee, A. N. Sinha, Mrs. Udyaratnam, K. V. Raghunatha Reddy, Janardhan Sharma, K. R. Choudhury, B. P. Maheshwari, J. P. Goyal, A. K. Nag, Y. Kumar, Hardev Singh, M. I. Khowaja, S. S. Shukla, K. K. Jain, Bishambar Lal Khanna, S. Murthi, P. K. Chakravati, P. K. Chatterjee, A. George Pudussery, Girish Chandra Mathur, D. Udai Pratap Singh, Yogeshwar Prasad, M. R. Krishna Pillai, B. D. Sharma, K. P. Gupta, T. S. Venkataraman, M. S. Gupta, P. C. Agarwala. A. G. Ratnaparkhi, A. K. Gupta, M. Veerappa, T. R. Ramachandran, Ram Chandra Prasad, Santosh Chatterjee, N. N. Keshwani, K. Jayaram, R. Ganapathy Iyer, Thyagarajan, R. Vasudeva Pillai, R. V. S. Mani, S. C. Majumdar, Shaukat Hussain, K. Baldev Mehta, Mohan Behari Lal, Sadhu Singh Harish Chandra, V. G. Row, S. N. Kakkar, S. K. Kapur, Parthasarthy, Shanti Swarup Bhatnagar, K. L. Mehta, Satish Mehta, Brij Kishore Prasad, Ali Ahmad, Dr. V. A. Seyid Muhammad, Naranarayan Gooptu, Tapesh Roy, Madhan Bhaittia, Ajit Singh Banis and Brij Raj Kishore, Advocates; M/s. J. B. Dadachanji, Onkar Chand Mathur and Ravinder Narain, Advocates of M/s. J. B. Dadachanji and Co.; and M/s. D. P. Singh, M. K. Ramamurthi, R. K. Garg and S. C. Agarwal, Advocates of M/s. Ramamurthi and Co., with them), for Appellant (In Cr. A. No. 80 of 1963); Mr. C. K. Daphtary, Attorney-General for India and Mr. L. D. Kaushal, Deputy Advocate-General for the State of Punjab, (M/s. D. D. Choudhri, R. N. Sachthey and R. H. Dhebar, Advocates, with them); for Respondent (In Cr. A. No. 80 of 1963); Mr. A. S. R. Chari, Senior Advocate, (M/s. D. P. Singh, M. K. Ramamurthi, R. K. Garg and S. C. Agarwal, Advocates of M/s. Ramamurthi and Co. with him), for Appellant (in Cr. A. No. 86 of 1963); M/s. Hardev Singh and Y. Kumar, Advocates, for Appellants (In Cr. A. No. 87 to 93 of 1963), Mr. L. D. Kaushal, Deputy Advocate-General for the State of Punjab, (M/s. D. D. Choudhuri, R. N. Sachthey and R. H. Dhebar, Advocates, with him), for Respondent (In Cr. A. Nos. 86 to 93 of 1963), Mr. A. S. R. Chari, Senior Advocates, (M/s. O. P. Malhotra and B. Parthasarthy, Advocates and M/s. J. B. Dadachanji, Onkar Chand Mathur and Ravinder Narain Advocates of M/s. J. B. Dadachanji and Co., with him), for Appellant (In Cr. A. No. 65 of 1963), Mr. N. C. Chatterjee, Senior Advocate, (Mr. Janardan Sharma, Advocate, with him), for Appellant (In Cr. A. No. 109 of 1963), Appellant (In Cr. A. No. 110 of 1963 in person), M/s. K. T. Sule, Jitendra Sharma and Janardan Sharma, Advocates, for Appellants, (In Cr. A. No. 111, 114 to 126 of 1963) and for Detenu-Interveners Nos. 12, 14, 16, 18 and 37, Mr. C. K. Daphtary, Attorney-General for India and Mr. N. S. Bindra, Senior Advocate, (M/s. B. R. G. K. Achar, R. N. Sachthey and R. H. Dhebar, Advocates, with them), for the Respondents (In Cr. A. Nos. 65, 109 to 111 and 114 to 126 of 1963), Mr. C. K. Daphtary, Attorney-General for India, Mr. H. N. Sanyal, Solicitor-General of India and Mr. S. V. Gupte, Additional Solicitor-General of India, (M/s. R. N. Sachthey and R. H. Dhebar, Advocates, with them), for Intervener No. 1, Mr. Naunit Lal, Advocate, for Intervener No. 2, Mr. B. Sen. Senior Advocate, (Mr. P. K. Bose, Advocate with him), for Intervener No. 3, Mr. S. P. Varma, Advocate, for Intervener No. 4, Mr. M. Adhikari, Advocate-General for the State of Madhya Pradesh, (Mr. I. N. Shroff, Advocate, with him), for Intervener No. 5, Mr. A. Ranganadham Chetty, Senior Advocate, (Mr. A. V. Rangam, Advocate, with him), for Intervener No. 6, Mr. G. C. Kasliwal, Advocate-General for the State of Rajasthan, (M/s. 390 R. H. Dhebar and R. N. Sachthey; Advocates, with him), for Intervener No. 7, Mr. C. P. Lal, Advocate, for Intervener No. 8, Mr. N. C. Chatterjee, Senior Advocate, (M/s. Narayan Gooptu and Tapesh Roy, Advocates and M/s. D. P. Singh, M. K. Ramamurthi, R. K. Garg and S. C. Agarwal, Advocates of M/s. Ramamurthi and Co., with him), for Intervener No. 69, Mr. A. S. R. Chari, Senior Advocates, (M/s. Narayan Gooptu and Tapesh Roy, Advocates and M/s. D. P. Singh, M. K. Ramamurthi, R. K. Garg and S. C. Agarwal, Advocates of M/s. Ramamurthi and Co., with him), for Intervener No. 70, M/s. A. A. Peerbhoy, A. Desai, M. Rajagopalan and K. R. Choudhri, Advocates, for Interveners Nos. 79 and 80, M/s. I. M. Lall, S. S. Khanduja and Ganpat Rai, Advocates, for interveners Nos. 61 to 64, M/s. D. S. Nargolkar, Jitendra Sharma and Janardan Sharma, Advocates, for Interveners Nos. 9 to 11, 13, 15, 17, 19 and 20 to 36, Mr. Ethiarajulu Naidu, Senior Advocate, (M/s. D. P. Singh, M. K. Ramamurthi, R. K. Garg and S. C. Agarwal, Advocates of M/s. Ramamurthi and Co., with him), for Mrs. Mohana Upadhyaya (on behalf of her detenu husband), Interveners Nos. 9 to 68, 71 to 80 and the Appellants (in all the above-mentioned appeals) present in person. Mr. Dinabandhu Sahu, Advocate-General for the State of Orissa, (Mr. R. H. Dhebar, Advocate, with him), for Intervener No. 81.
-held, but suspension of right to move court, as provided by Presidential Order under Article 359(1) can remain in force for period of proclamation or for shorter period if so specified by the order.
-see also A.D.M. Jabalpur v. S. Shukla AIR 1976 SC 1207=(1976) 2 SCC 521=1976 UJ (SC) 610.
-held, first condition is regarding character of legal action seeking relief against contravention of fundamental rights specified in Presidential Order and second condition is regarding period during which the ban is to operate.
Judgment
GAJENDRAGADKAR, J. : (for himself, Sarkar, Wanchoo, Hidayatullah, K. C. Das Gupta and Shah JJ.) This group of 26 criminal appeals has been placed for hearing and disposal before a special Constitutional Bench, because the appeals constituting the group raise two common important questions of Constitutional law. Nine of these appeals have been preferred against the decisions of the Punjab High Court, whereas seventeen have been preferred against the decisions the Bombay High Court. All the appellants are detenues who have been detained respectively by the Punjab and the Maharashtra State Governments under Rule 30(1) (b) of the Defence of India Rules (hereinafter called the Rules) made by the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred on it by S. 3 of the Defence of India Ordinance, 1962 (No. 4 of 1962) (hereinafter called the Ordinance). They applied to the Punjab and the Bombay High Courts respectively under S. 491 (1) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and alleged that they had been improperly and illegally detained. Their contention was that S. 3(2) (15) (i) and S. 40 of the Defence of India Act, 1962 (No. 51 of 1962) hereinafter called the Act and Rule 30(1) (b) under which they have been detained are constitutionally invalid, because they contravene their fundamental rights under Articles 14, 21 and 22(4), (5) and (7) of the Constitution, and so, they claimed that an order should be passed in their favour directing the respective State Governments to set them at liberty. These petitions have been dismissed on the ground that the Presidential Order which has been issued under Art. 359 of the Constitution creates a bar which precludes them from moving the High Court under S. 491 (1) (b), Cr. P. C. That is how the decisions of the two High Courts under appeal raise two common questions of considerable importance. The first question is : what is the true scope and effect of the Presidential Order which has been issued under Art. 359(1) ? The answer to this question would depend upon a fair and reasonable construction of Art. 359 (1) itself. The second question is : does the bar created by the Presidential Order issued under Art. 359 (1) operate in respect of applications made by detenues under S. 491 (1) (b) of the Code ? The answer to this question would depend upon the determination of the true character of the proceedings which the detenues have taken under S. 491 (1) (b), considered in the light of the effect of the Presidential Order issued under Art. 359(1). Both the Punjab and the Bombay High Courts have held against the appellants. Meanwhile, when similar petitions were made before the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Cases Nos. 1618, 1759 and 1872 of 1963 Sher Singh Negi v. District Magistrate, Kanpur (All) the said High Court took a contrary view and directed the release of the detenues who had moved it under S. 491 (1) (b) of the Code. It is because the questions raised are important and the answers given by the different High Courts have disclosed a sharp difference of opinion that a Special Bench has been constituted a deal with these appeals. If the two principal questions are answered in favour of the detenues, a third question would arise and that relates to the validity of the impugned sections of the Act and the relevant statutory Rules.
2. On September 8, 1962, the Chinese aggressively attacked the northern border of India and that constituted a threat to the security of India. That is why on October 26, 1962, the President issued a Proclamation under Art. 352 of the Constitution. This Proclamation declared that a grave emergency existed whereby the security of India was threatened by external aggression. On the same day, the Ordinance was promulgated by the President. This Ordinance was amended by Ordinance No. 6 of 1962 promulgated on November 3, 1962. On this day, the President issued the Order under Art. 359 (1), suspending the rights of citizens to move any Court for the enforcem
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
