399 of 1952
Petition under article 32 of the Constitution of India for a writ in the nature of habeas corpus Godavari Parutekar the petitioner in person
M C Setalvad Attorney General for India GN Joshi and P A Mehta with him for the respondent
December 5
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BosE J
This is a habeas corpus petition under article 32 of the Constitution
The petitioner was detained the 16th of October 1951 under the of 1950 as amended in 1951
Her detention was actually longer than this but the earlier detentions were under a different set of orders which are not relevant to the present matter
The present detention is based an order of the District Magistrate Thana and merely says that the petitioner be detained without specifying any period
The order of confirmation was passed the 4th of January 1952 and there again no period was specified
The petitioner s case is that as no period was specified in the order her period of detention expired the 31st of March 1952 because of the amending Act of 1951  or at the outside the 30th of September 1952 because of Act XXXIV of 1952 which effected a further amendment
The reply behalf of the State of Bombay is that the of 1950 was again amended by Act LXI of 1952 and that the effect of this amendment was to carry the petitioner s detention to the 31st of March 1953 because of section 11 A which was added to the original Act of 1950
The petitioner counters by saying that the new Act does not apply to cases in which the order of detention is not silent about its duration and so section 11 A does not serve to extend the period of her detention
She relies the following portion of section II A 2  every detention order which has been confirmed under section 11 before the commencement of the Preventive Detention Second Amendment Act 1952 shall unless a shorter priod is specified in the order continue to remain in force until the Ist day of April 1953  The petitioner concedes that no shorter period is specified in her order of detention but contends that as her detention would have expired either the 31st of March 1952 or the 30th of September 1952 one of those two dates must now be read into the order and when that is done we have an order which specifies as shorter period therefore section 11 A 2 does not serve to extend her detention
We are unable to accept this contention
The section is clear and unless a shorter period is specified in the order section I 1 A2 applies
We cannot add the words or must be deemed to have been specified by reason of the expiry of the earlier Act into the section
We hold therefore that section 11 A2 validly extended the period of detention till the Ist of April 1953
1 The petitioner s next point is based articles 14 and 22ib of the Constitution  It arises in this way
Section 3 1 a of the of 1950 classifies grounds of permissible detention into three categories
Article 22 7 b empowers Parliament to prescribe the maximum period for which any person may in any class or classes of cases be detained
The petitioner argues that this permits only one maximum for each class and that if different maxima are provided for equals within a class it offends not only article 22 7 b but also article 14 as interpreted by the decisions of this Court She next argues that section 11 A now introduced by the second amending Act of 1952 Act LXI of 1952 does just that and so is ultra vires
Her point is put as follows
Sub section 1 of section 11 A states that the maximum period for which any person may be detained in pursuance of any detention order which has been confirmed under section 1 1 shall be twelve months from the date of detention
But sub section 2 qualifies this by dividing detentions into two classes 213 a those in which the detention order was confirmed before 30th of September 1952 and b those in which the confirmation was after that date and it provides that
in the former case unless a shorter period is specified in the order the detention shall continue either till the 1st of April 1953 or for twelve months from the date of detention whichever expires later
This she says introduces a fresh classification which divides detentions into those before the Act and those after
That she says is ultra vires first because it introduces a discriminatory classification in the class to which she belongs under section 3 of the Act and second because it entails discrimination even in the fresh class into which she has been thrown by the new sub division made by the second amending Act of 1952
As regards the first point the ratio decidendi in Shamrao V Parulekar vs The District Magistrate Thana and Others1 applies here
In that case detentions were divided into those which had already been considered by an Advisory Board and those which had not
This was upheld
The dividing line here is different namely a certain date but the principle is the same and its reasonableness is apparent from a consideration of the various amendments which have been made from time to time
The life of the Act of 1950 which was the principal Act was extended till the 1st of October 1952 by section 2 of the amending Act Act XXXIV of 1952 and the effect of section 3 was to prolong the  life of all detentions in force on 14th of March 1952 provided they had been confirmed before that date for so long as the principal Act was in force
At that date this meant till the 1st of October 1952
But the second amending Act of 1952 extended the life of the principal Act till the 31st of December1954
Therefore in the absence of section 11 A all those detentions would have been extended till that date
But section 11 A modified that and put 1st of April1953 as the latest date for these old detentions 1  at 691 and 693
214 It therefore conferred a benefit and cannot be deemed unreasonable
Sub section 3 of section 11 A shows that that was the object
But the petitioner attacked the provisions on the ground of discrimination
She said that even assuming the new classification of detentions into those before and after the 30th of September 1952 to be good section 11 A is nevertheless discriminatory because it discriminates amongst those in her class namely those whose detentions were made and confirmed before the 30th of September
She put it in this way
Taking the case of her own detention she pointed out that if section II A is good it will continue till the 1st of April 1953 that is to say her detention will have been for a period of 17 12 months from the 16th of October 1951 till the 1st of April 1953 On the other hand a person detained after her on say the last of September 1952 would also be due for release on the 1st of April 1953 and so would have had only six months  detention
This in our opinion is not discrimination within the meaning of article 14
A maximum can be fixed either by specifying a particular period such as twelve months or by setting an outside limit land it is inevitable in such a case that the length of detention will vary in each individual case
Those taken into detention at a later date are bound to be detained for a shorter time
Government is not bound to detain everybody for the same length of time
 It has a discretion
Moreover the appropriate Government has boon left power to revoke or modify the detention order at any earlier time
This point was considered in Shamrao V Parulekar vs The District Magistrate Thana  Others 1 and was decided against the detenu
The petitioner endeavoured to have her application reopened on the merits contending again that the grounds of detention are vague
She relies on Shamrao V Parulekar vs The State of Bombay 2 where 1  at 691 at 693
2 Petition No 86 of 1952
215 another detenu was released by another Bench of this Court in circumstances which according to her are very similar
We are unable to allow this as her petition has already been rejected on the merits
She was only allowed to appear on constitutional points
We understand that in the other petition this fact was not brought to the notice of the Court
The application is dismissed
Application dismissed


Summary:
Section 11 A which was inserted in the of 1950 by the Preventive Detention Second Amendment Act 1952 provided that the maximum period for which any person may be detained in pursuance of any detention order which has been confirmed under section 11 shall be twelve months from the date of detention
But subs
2 qualified this by dividing do tentions into two classes a those in which the detention order was confirmed before the 30th September 1952 and b those in which the confirmation was after that date and it provided that in the former case unless a shorter period was specified in the order the detention shall continue either till the 1st of April 1953 or for twelve months from the date of detention whichever expires later I Held i that the section did not contravene article 14 or article 22 7 b of the Constitution merely because it introduced a fresh classification which divided detentions into those before the Act and those thereafter as the classification was a reasonable one
The section did not involve any discrimination between persons whose detentions were confirmed before the 30th September 1952 Merely because as a result o f the section in the case of some persons the period of detention may be longer and in the case of others it may be shorter Shamrao Parulekar vs The District Magistrate Thana and Others   followed
iithat a detention order made the 16th October 1951 which did not specify any period of detention was not a case where  a shorter period was specified in the order  within the meaning of section 11 A 2 merely because the detention would have expired either  the 31st March 1952 or 30th September 1952 but for the Amendment Act