GOHEL UMEDSING NARUBHA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are eleven petitions for a writ of habeas corpus involving common questions of law. Of course the petitioners in petitions Nos. 1, 2, 10, 11, and 12 of 1952 were arrested and detained on 27th March 1951 by an order of the District Magistrate, Central Saurashtra District, dated 25th March 1951. The petitioner in petition No. 7 of 1952 was arrested and detained on 26th March 1951 by a similar order of the said District Magistrate, and in the case of the above six petitioners the Advisory Board has submitted a report under Section 10 (1) of the Preventive Detention Act on 1st August 1951.

(2.) THE petitioner in petition No. 3 of 1952 was arrested on 12th April 1951 by an order of the District Magistrate Central Saurashtra District, dated 11th April 1951. The petitioner in petition No, 81 of 1951 was arrested and detained by an order of the District Magistrate, Gohilwad District, dated 17th April 1951. The petitioner in petition No. 6 of 1952 was arrested and detained on 18th April 1951 by an order of the District Magistrate, Central Saurashtra District, dated 16th April 1951, and in the case of these three petitioners, the Advisory Board has made its report on 17th July 1951. The petitioner in petition No. 4 of 1952 was arrested and detained on 12th June 1951 by an order of the District Magistrate, Gohilwad District, dated 8th June 1951 and the Advisory Board has made its report on 7th November 1951. In none of these ten cases has the report of the Advisory Board been submitted within ten weeks of the date of the detention. The petitioner in petition No. 5 of 1952 was arrested and detained on 28th July 1951 by an order of the District Magistrate, Central Saurashtra District, dated the same day and in his case the Advisory Board has made no report.

(3.) THE order of detention has been disputed by the petitioner on various grounds, but it is unnecessary to deal with them since in our opinion, the petitions can be disposed of on the preliminary objection, viz. , that inasmuch as the report of the Advisory Board to whom the cases of the petitioners were referred, was not submitted to the Saurashtra Government within Jen weeks from the date of the order of detention, their further detention has become illegal. The right to personal liberty has been guaranteed as a fundamental right by the Constitution of India and under Article 21 no person can be deprived of the said right except according to procedure established by law. Article 22 provides a limitation upon the power of the Legislature, under Article 21, to make any law as to the deprivation of personal liberty, but under Clause (4) of Article 22 the preventive detention of a person cannot be made for a longer period than three months unless the Advisory Board has reported before the expiration of the said period of three months that there is in its opinion sufficient cause for such detention. Therefore, a person can be detained for more than three months provided the Advisory Board has submitted a report in favour of such detention. It must follow, therefore, that if the Advisory Board has failed to submit its report within three months then the detention after the said period of three months will be illegal, excepting where a person is detained under a law made by Parliament under Sub-clauses (a) and (b) of Clause (7) of Article 22. The Advisory Board's report has to be submitted before the expiration of the said three months because the detention of a person for a period longer than three months has not been permitted by the Constitution, save on such report, and under Clause (7), Sub-clauses (a) and (b) of Article 22.