section 86, 147, and 155 of 1952) under article 32 of the Constitution for writs in the nature of habeas corpus.
Petitioners in person in ,petitions Nos. 86, 147 and 157 of 1952.
Rajani Patel for the petitioner in petition No. 155.
M.C. Setalvad, Attorney General for India, (G. N. Joshi, with him) for the respondents.
R. Ganapathi Iyer for the intervener (State of Hydera bad).
May 26.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BOSE J.
This petition and three others, namely peti tions Nos.
147, 155 and 157 of 1952, raise issues regarding the vires and applicability to these cases of section 3 of the Preventive Detention (Amendment) Act, 1952.
This judg ment is confined to those points and will govern these cases only in so far as they raise those points.
The remaining points which do not touch these issues will be dealt with by another Bench.
The only exception is a point raised in petition No. 155 of 1952 with which the other petitions are not concerned.
We will deal with that separately.
The present petition (No. 86 of 1952) was argued very ably and with commendable conciseness by the petitioner in person.
The fact that he has not been able to persuade us to his view is not due to any defect in his presentation of the case.
The petitioner was arrested on the 15th of November, 1951, and an order of detention under the Preventive Deten tion Act of 1950 was served on him the same day, and he was given the grounds of detention on the following day, the 16th.
His case was placed before an Advisory Board and on the 8th of February, 1952, the Bombay Government "confirmed and continued" the detention under section 11 (1) of the Preventive Detention Act of 1950.
This Act, as it originally stood, was due to expire on the 1st of April, 1951, but in that year an amending 686 Act was passed which, among other things, prolonged its life to the 1st of April, 1952.
The order of detention in this case was passed under the Act of 1950 as amended by the ,Act of 1951.
According to past decisions of this Court, the detention would have expired on the 1st of April, 1952, when the Act of 1950 as amended in 1951 would itself have expired.
But a fresh Act was passed in 1952 (Act XXXIV of 1952), the Preventive Detention (Amendment) Act, 1952.
The effect of this Act was to prolong the life of the Act of 1950 for a further six months, namely till the 1st of Octo ber, 1952.
The question is whether that Act also prolonged the detention and whether it had the vires to do so.
It was contended that the mere prolongation of the life of an Act does not, by reason of that alone, prolong the life of a detention which was due to expire when the Act under which it was made expired.
Therefore, as the Act under which the present detention was made was due to expire on the 1st of ApriL, 1952, the mere prolongation of its life by the amending Act did not affect a prolongation of the detention.
Accordingly, the petitioner should have been released on the 1st of April, 1952, and as there is no fresh order of detention he is entitled to immediate release.
We need not express any opinion on that point because there is present in the amending Act something more than a mere prolongation of the life of the old one.
There is section a which is in these terms: "Validity and duration of detention in certain cases Every detention order confirmed under section 11 of the principal Act and in force immediately before the commence ment of this Act shall have effect as if it had been con firmed under the provisions of the principal Act as amended by this Act; and accordingly, where the period of detention is either not specified in such detention order or specified (by whatever form of words) to be for the duration or until the expiry of the principal Act or until the 31st day of March, 1952, such detention order shall continue to 687 remain in force for so long as the principal Act is in force, but without prejudice to the power of the appropriate Government to revoke or modify it at any time.
" It will be noticed that the concluding part of this section states that the detention order shall remain in force "for so long as the principal Act is in force." Sec tion 2 of the amending Act defines the "principal Act" to mean the Act of 1950.
Therefore, it was argued, as the Act of 1950 was due to expire on the 1st of April, 1952, the present detention also came to an end on that date and so, in the absence of a fresh order of detention, the petition er 's detention after that date was illegal.
This argument, though ingenious, is fallacious.
The construction of an Act which has been amended is now governed by technical rules and we mast first be clear regarding the proper canons of construction.
The rule is that when a subsequent Act amends an earlier one in such a way as to incorporate itself, or a part of itself, into the earlier, then the earlier Act must thereafter be read and construed (except where that would lead to a repugnancy, inconsistency or absurdity) as if the altered words had been written into the earlier Act with pen and ink and the old words scored out so that thereafter there is no need to refer to the amending Act at all.
This is the rule in England:see Craies on Statute Law, 5th edition, page 207; it is the law in Amenca: see Crawford on Statutory Construc tion, page 110; and it is the law which the Privy Council applied to India in Keshoram Poddar vs Nundo Lal Mallick(1).
Bearing this in mind it will be seen that the Act of 1950 remains the Act of 1950 all the way through even with its subsequent amendments.
Therefore, the moment the Act of 1952 was passed and section 2 came into operation, the Act of 1950 meant the Act of 1950 as amended by section 2, that is to say, the Act of 1950 now due to expire on the 1st of October, 1952.
(1)(1927) 54 I.A. 152 at 155.
688 Turning now to section 3, whose vires is questioned, and examining it clause by clause we first get these words: "Every detention order confirmed under section 11 of the principal Act and in force immediately before the commencement of this Act.
" According to the rule of construction just examined, the words "principal Act" mean the Act of 1950 as amended by the Acts of 1951 and of 1952, 'that is to say, the Act of 1950 due to expire on the 1st of October, 1952.
Incidental ly, in the particular context it could not mean the Act of 1950 as it stood in 1950 because no order confirmed under it as it then stood could have been alive "at the commencement of this Act", namely on the 15th of March, 1952.
The section contin ues "shall have effect as if it had been confirmed under the provisions of the principal Act as amended ' by this Act.
" The underlined words "as amended by this Act" were relied on to show that wherever the words "the principal Act" were referred to they meant the unamended original Act of 1950, otherwise these words would have been unnecessary.
In our opinion, they were unnecessary in the sense that their absence would not have made any difference to the interpretation though it would have made the section harder to follow and understand.
We say that for this reason.
Without the underlined words the section paraphrased would read "Every detention order confirmed under the original Act shall have effect as if confirmed under its provisions.
" If this were to be read literally it would lead to an absurdity, for if the order is actually confirmed under the original unamended Act it would be pointless to introduce a fiction and say that the order shall be deemed to be con firmed under that Act as unamended.
But even apart from a strictly technical construction, the language of the section is accurate because, as we 689 have said, the rule is that an amended Act must be read as if the words of amendment had been written into the Act except where that would lead to an inconsistency, and this would be one of those cases unless the words are construed in a sensible and commonsense way.
The draughtsman there fore had either to leave the words as they were, with an apparent inconsistency, or make his meaning clear by adding the words he did.
But we do not think the addition made any difference to the result.
We now turn to the second half of section 3, that is to say, to the words following the semi co]on.
It is important to note here that this part is consequential on the first and merely explains the effect of the first half.
It is also relevant to note that it deals with four different kinds of orders, different, that is to say, in the form of the words used though in the end they all come to the same thing.
It deals with the following kinds of order: (1) an order in which the period of detention is not specified at all; in that event the detention would end at midnight on the night of the gist of March, 1952.
It is clear that in this context the words "the principal Act" cannot mean the Act expiring on the 1st of October, 1952, because it envisages an order made before the Act of 1952 was in being and so on the date of its making the order could only refer to the Act then in being; (2) an order in which the period is stated to be "for the duration of the principal Act", that is to say, till the 31st of March, 1952 , (3) an order in which the period is specified to be until the expiry of the principal Act, which again brings us back to the 31st of March, 1952, as the last day of deten tion; (4) an order in which the period is specified to be till the 31st of March, 1952.
In all these four cases the section says that the detention order shall "continue to remain in force, for so long as the principal Act is in force", that , is to say, till the 1st October, 1952.
690 That follows from the first part of the section because that is the meaning which the law directs shall be placed on these words unless the context otherwise directs and the context does not direct otherwise here.
This part of the section is only explanatory.
But we wish to found deeper than this.
It is the duty of Courts to give effect to the meaning of an Act when the meaning can be fairly gathered from the words used, that is to say, if one construction will lead to an absurdity while another will give effect to what common sense would show was obviously intended the construction which would defeat the ends of the Act must be rejected even if the same words used in the same section, and even the same sentence, have to be construed differently.
Indeed, the law goes so far as to require the Courts sometimes even to modify the grammatical and ordinary sense of the words if by doing so absurdity and inconsistency can be avoided.
See the speech of Lord Wens leydale in Grey vs Pearson (1) quoted with approval by the Privy Council in Narayana Swami vs Emperor (2); also Salmon vs Duncombe(3).
The rule is also set out in the text books: See Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes, 9th edition, page 236, and Craies on Statute Law, 5th edition, pages 89 to 93.
The meaning of section 3 is quite plain and only desperate hair splitting can reduce it to an absurdity.
Courts should not be astute to defeat the provisions of an Act whose meaning is, on the face of it, reasonably plain.
Of course, this does not mean that an Act, or any part of it, can be recast.
It must be possible to spell the meaning contended for out of the words actually used.
We hold that there is no difficulty of construction.
It was next argued that in any event the extended deten tion became a fresh detention (because of the Act of 1952) from the date the Act came into force, and reliance was placed upon the judgments of two of us, Mahajan and Das JJ.
in section Krishnan vs The State of Madras(4).
It is enough to say that was not the (1) r at 106.
(3) 11 App.
627 at 634.
(2) A.I.R. 1939 P.C. 47.
(4) ; at 635 and 640.
691 decision of the Court in that case, and further, that the two Judges who held it was a fresh detention nevertheless considered that a fresh order with its concomitant fresh grounds and a fresh reference to the Advisory Board were not required; therefore, either way the petitioner must fail.
Reference was made to the equality clause in article 14 of the Constitution but that argument is easily met because the classification which section 3 makes is reasonable.
In one class it places all those whose cases have already been considered by the Advisory Board and in the other those whose cases have yet to go before it; also the law is fair, or at any rate as fair as detention laws can be, despite this distinction because power is left to the appropriate Government to revoke or modify these orders, or any of them, at any time.
Substantially therefore there is no differenti ation.
Article 14 was considered at length in The Slate of West Bengal vs Anwar Ali Sarkar (1), and according to the law laid down there, the Court must be satisfied on two points before it can strike at a law on the ground of unlawful discrimination.
It must be satis fied (1) that the law in fact discriminates and (2) that such discrimination is not permissible on the principle of a rational classification made for the purposes of the legislation.
The argument here was that section a discriminated against those detenus whose cases had been referred to the Advisory Board and whose detention was confirmed, on the strength of its report, under section 11 (1) before the amending Act of 1952 was passed.
The reason given was that these detentions are automatically extended up to the 1st of October, 1952, by section 3 without further reference to an Advisory Board, whereas in other cases, that is to say, in the case of those who were detained before the amending Act but whose cases had not been referred at the date it came into force, and in the case of those detained after the (1)[1952] S.c.R.284 692 amending Act, the Advisory Board is called into play and individual attention is given to each case with the result that many of those detentions might not be for as long as six months.
They might, for example, be only for one month or two.
It was urged that this was discrimination of a kind which cannot be supported by any principle of permissible classification because classification into the above catego ries has no reasonable relation to the objects of the legis lation, such as security of the State, maintenance of public order and so forth.
We are unable to accept this line of reasoning.
To say that section.
3 automatically extends the detention of persons in the petitioner 's position to the 1st of October, 1952, and stops there, is only to make a partial statement of the effect of section 3 because the extension is subject to the power of the appropriate Government to revoke or modify it at any time.
In other words, the automatic con tinuation of the detention till the 1st of October is not absolute and irrevocable but is made dependent on the power of the appropriate Government to revoke or modify it at its discretion under section 13 of the Act.
The State may or may not continue the detention for the whole of the extended period.
In both classes of cases the duration the deten tion within the overall limit of the life of the Act is left to the discretion of the State.
The only difference is that in the one class of cases the discretion is exercised after the period has been extended by the amending Act, in the other the appropriate Government fixes the period itself in its discretion and can again at its discretion revoke or modify it.
In both cases, the substance of the law is that the period of detention is left to the discretion of the State, and so there is no substantial discrimination.
It was argued that however fair this may look on paper, in practice there will be grave discrimination because, as a matter of fact, the State will not apply its mind in the majority of cases like the petitioner 'section That is an argument we cannot accept and no material Was placed before us t0 justify such a conclusion, 693 We turn now to the next point.
It was contended that sec tion 3 offends the Constitution because article 22 (4) and (7) do not envisage the direct intervention of Parliament in a whole batch of cases.
The protection guaranteed is that there shall be individual attention and consideration to each separate case by some duly specified and constituted authority.
In our opinion, this is not accurate.
Article 22 (4) guarantees that there shall be no preven tive detention for more than three months unless the law authorising it makes provision for an Advisory Board and the Board after considering each individual case separately reports that there is in its opinion sufficient cause for such detention.
To that extent there must be individual consideration of each case, but once the report is made and is unfavourable to the detenu, then the detention can be for a longer period provided it does not exceed "the maximum period prescribed by any law made by Parliament under sub clause (b) of clause (7).
" Sub clause (b) of clause (7) empowers Parliament to prescribe "the maximum period for which any person may in any class or . . . of cases be detained under any law providing for preventive deten tion.
" Parliament is accordingly empowered to specify a class.
It has done so.
The class is all persons whose cases have already been considered by an Advisory Board.
It is empowered to prescribe a maximum period.
That also it has done.
The extended detention (that is to say, for more than three months) can then be "under any law providing for preventive detention.
" A law made by Parliament falls within these words.
Parliament is equally authorised to say who shall determine the period of detention, and as there is nothing in the Constitution to prevent it can itself exer cise the authority it is empowered to delegate to others.
Stress was laid on the words "any person" in subclause (b) of clause (7) and it was contended that this contem plates individual attention in each case.
But 694 if that is so, then it means that Parliament must itself direct the maximum period for each separate person falling within the class individually.
The words are, we think, reasonably plain and we hold that Parliament can prescribe the maximum for a class taken as a whole as it has done in section 3.
It was next argued that once the power given under clause (7) to fix a maximum period has been exercised the power exhausts itself and cannot be exercised again in respect of the same detention.
In our opinion, no such limitation is imposed upon Parliament by the Constitution.
Then it was said that section 3 stands on a footing different from section 12 of the amending Act of 1951 as it introduces the idea of potentially indefinite detention and accordingly is repugnant to the Constitution, and in any event is a fraud upon it.
In so far as this means that section a fixes no time limit, the contention is unsound because the section specifies the exact period of the deten tion, namely till the expiry of the Act of 1950, that is to say, till the 1st of October, 1952.
In so far as it means that Parliament is enabled to continue detentions indefi nitely by the expedient of periodic amendments in the Act of 1950, the answer is that Parliament has the power.
This was precisely the power exercised in the amending Act of 1951 and upheld by this Court in section Krishnan vs The State of Madras(1).
The present Act is no different from that in this respect.
So far, we have dealt with the facts in petition No. 86 of 1952.
The facts in the other three petitions naturally differ in their details but they all conform to the same general pattern so far as the points discussed above are concerned, so there is no need to discuss them individually.
We hold that section 3 of the amending Act of 1952 is intra vires and that the detentions are not bad on any of the grounds discussed above.
The rest of the points raised in each individual case are left open except for one point which (1) ; 695 arises in petition No. 155 of 1952.
That point is as fol lows.
The first ground of detention given to the petitioner in this case reads: "Being the President of Jamat of Agris you have used your position as such to increase your influence over the residents of Uran Peta, have created a band of obedient and trusted associates, have inflicted heavy fines on villagers in Uran Peta who have disregarded your wishes and have imposed on them boycott or excommunication in cases of their refusal to pay the fines.
" It was argued that at the very outset 'these allegations import nothing more than an exercise of functions such as the infliction of fines and excommunication which the peti tioner as head of the caste had authority to do.
They do not touch any of the matters covered by section 3 (1) (a) of the , under which the petitioner is detained.
For example, they do not touch the security of the State or the maintenance of public order or any of the other matters specified in section 3.
They are therefore irrelevant to the detention, and as it is impossible to say how far these irrelevant matters influenced the detention, the petitioner is entitled to release.
Reliance was placed upon certain observations of the Federal Court in Rex vs Basudev(1).
We think it unnecessary to examine this point because we do not think the ground is irrelevant nor do we agree that it means what the petitioner says.
In our opinion, the grounds of detention must be regarded as a whole and when that is done the relevance of the first ground becomes plain.
The gravamen of the charge against the petitioner is that he aimed at setting up a parallel government in the Uran Peta area and that in order to achieve that end he did various acts such as intimidating the workers in the salt pans with threats of murder, and his own workers with threats of death, unless they carried out his (1) at 651.
696 orders; and among the lesser instances given to illustrate the exercise of parallel governmental authority are the ones set out in the first ground, namely the infliction of fines with the sanction of excommunication and boycott to ensure their payment and due obedience to his orders.
This point has no force and is decided against the petitioner.
It will not be open to him to re agitate this afresh when his case is reheard on the remaining issues.
All the four cases will now be set down for hearing on the remaining points which arise in them.
As they do not involve constitutional issues they need not go before a Constitution Bench.
Agent for the petitioner in Petition No. 155: M.S.K. Sastri for P.G. Gokhale.
Agent for the respondents and Intervener:P. A. Mehta.

Summary:
An order directing the detention of the petitioner was made on the 15th of November, 1951, under the Preventive Detention Act of 1950 as amended by the Amending Act of 1951, which prolonged the duration of the Act of 1950 up to the 1st April, 1952.
The Preventive Detention (Amendment) Act of 1952 extended the duration of the Act of 1950 for a further period of six months, that is to say, until the 1st October, 1952.
Section 3 of the Act of 1952 provided further that detention orders confirmed under the principal Act and in force immediately before the commencement of the Act of 1952, shall, where the period of detention is not specified in the order, remain in force "for so long as the principal Act (which was defined as the Act of 1950) was in force.
" It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that his detention after 1st April, 1952, was illegal.
Held, (i)When a subsequent Act amends an earlier one in such a way as to incorporate itself or a part of itself into the earlier, then the earlier Act must thereafter be read and construed (except where that would lead to a repug nancy, inconsistency or absurdity) as if the altered words had been written into the earlier Act with pen and ink and the old words scored out so that there is no need to refer to the amending Act at all.
After the passing of the Act of 1952 the expressions "the Act of 1950" and "the principal Act" meant the Act of 1950 as amended by the Act of 1952, and the effect of section 3 of the Act of 1952 was that the detention of the petitioner would remain in force until the 1st October, 1952, without prejudice to the power of the Government to modify or revoke it; (ii) section 3 did not contravene article 14of the Constitu tion as there was a rational classification of the cases of detention orders in the section, and the period of detention was left in every case to the discretion of the State; (iii) the words "any person" in sub cl.
(b) of c1.7 of article 22 of the Constitution do not contemplate that individ ual attention should be paid to each case; on the contrary, the words used in the said sub clause empower the Parliament to prescribe the maximum for a class taken as a whole as it has done in section 3, and section 3 does not therefore offend cl.
(4) or cl.
(7) of article 22; (iv) the power of the Parliament to fix a maximum period does not exhaust itself once it has exercised that power but can be exercised again in respect of the same detention; (v) section 3 is not repugnant tO the Constitution on the ground that it does not fix a time limit, for it speci fies the period as until the expiry of the Act; nor on the ground that it introduces the idea of potentially indefinite detention by periodical amendments; for the Parliament has the power to do that: 685