SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1970 Supreme(SC) 511

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.M. SIKRI, V. BHARGAVA AND I.D. DUA, JJ.
Abdul Ghani, Petitioner
Versus
The State of J.and K., Respondent.
Writ Petn. No. 384 of 1970, D/-18-12-1970.
Advocates appeared
Mr. S. Lakshminarasu, Advocate Amicus curiae, for Petitioner, Mr. R. N. Sachthey, Advocate, for Respondent.

Advocates:
R.N.SACH, S.LAKSHMI NARASU

Headnote:ARTICLE 35(C) AS APPLIED TO JAMMU & KASHMIR DID NOT AFFECT RIGHT OF CITIZENS OF THAT STATE TO MOVE SUPREME COURT - INTRODUCTIONS OF PROVISION AS CONTAINED UNDER ARTICLE 35(c)

       -held, introduction of Art, 35(c), applying Constitution to J & K State has no effect on right of citizens of J & K to move Supreme Court under Article 32 for appropriate writ.

       -application of Article 35(c) to Jammu and Kahsmir State, does not affect the fundamental rights of citizens in that State to move Supreme Court for appropriate writ under Article 32.

       

Judgment

BHARGAVA, J.: - Abdul Ghani has filed this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution praying for the issue of a writ of Habeas Corpus, alleging that his detention in jail is illegal. He has been detained in pursuance of an order passed by the District Magistrate of Poonch in the State of Jammu and Kashmir under Section 3 (2) read with Section 5 of the Jammu and Kashmir Preventive Detention Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). That order is reproduced below:-

"Whereas, I, Syed Mohammad shafli Andrabi. LAS, District Magistrate Poonch, am satisfied that with a view, to preventing Abdul Gani s/o Asdha Caste Rather Kashmiri Muslim r/o Chohana P/S Surankote District, Poonch, from acting in a manner prejudicial to the security of the State, it is necessary so to do.

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 (2) read with Section 5 of the Jammu and Kashmir Preventive Detention Act. 1964, I Syed Mohd. Shaffi Andrabi, IAS, District Magistrate Poonch, hereby direct that the said Abdul Gani on be detained in Central Jail Jammu subject to such conditions as to maintenance of discipline and punishment for breaches of discipline as have been specified in the Jammu and Kashmir Detenu General Order of 1968.

Issued this day the 9th May, 1970 under my hand and seal.

Sd/- S. M. S. Andrabi, IAS

District Magistrate, Poonch. "

The order was passed on 9th May, 1970, and on the same day, the District Magistrate issued a direction under the proviso to section 8 of the Act which reads as follows:

"Whereas Abdul Gani s/o Asdha Caste Rather Kashmiri Muslim r/o Chohana p/s Surankote Dist. Poonch, has been detained in pursuance of order No. 38/PDA/70 dated 9th May, 1970 made by me under Section 3 (2) read with Section 5 of the Jammu and Kashmir Preventive Detention Act, 1964 with a view to preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the security of the State and;

Whereas, I consider it against the public interest to disclose the ground of detention to the said Abdul Gani s/o Asdha Caste Rather Kashmiri Muslim r/o Chohana p/s Surankote, District Poonch.

Now, therefore, in pursuance of Section 8 read with Section 13-A of the said Act, I hereby direct that the said Abdul Gani be informed it is against the security of the State to disclose to him the grounds on which his detention order was made.

Issued this day the 9th of May, 1970 under my hand and seal.

Sd/- S. M. S. Andrabi, IAS

Distt. Magistrate Poonch."

The petitioner was actually detained on the 22nd May, 1970, in pursuance of the detention order and, on the same day he was informed that it is against public interest to disclose to him the grounds on which the detention order was made in pursuance of the direction made by the District Magistrate mentioned above. On this information being conveyed to him, his signatures were taken in token thereof on the back of the paper on which this direction had been issued by the District Magistrate. His detention was subsequently confirmed by the State Government, after the grounds on which the order had been made and the other particulars having bearing on the matter had been examined by the Chief Miinister. On these facts, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has challenged the validity of the detention on seven different grounds.

2. The first ground is that. when the Constitution of India was applied to the State of Jammu and Kashmir by the order of the President under Article 370 of the Constitution, Article 35 was modified in its application to the State of Jammu and Kashmir by adding clause (c) which reads as follows:-

"35. (c) No law with respect to preventive detention made by the Legislature of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, whether before or after the commencement of the Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order. 1954, shall be void on the ground that it is inconsistent with any of the provisions of this Part, but any such law shall, to the extent of such inconsistency, cease to have effect on











Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top