Case: Godavari Parulekar Vs. State Of Bombay And Others

(1) This is a habeas corpus petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution.(2) The petitioner was detained on 16/10/1951 under the Preventive Detention Act 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 on 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 on 4/1/1952 and there again no period was specified.

Reasoning: The S. is clear and unless a shorter period is specified in the order, S. 11-A (2) 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 S. We hold therefore, that S. 11-A (2) validly extended the period of detention tillAs regards the first point, theratio decidendi in - Shamrao V. Parulekar v. District Magistrate, Thana Bombay, 1952 SCR 683 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 toin the absence of S. 11-A all those detentions would have been extended till that date. But S. 11-A modified that and put 1/4/1953 as the latest date for these old detentions. It, therefore, conferred a benefit and cannot be deemed unreasonable. Sub-Section (3) of S. 11-A shows that that was theThis, in our opinion, is not discrimination within the meaning of Art. 14. A maximum can be fixed, either by specifying a particular period, such as twelve months, or by setting outside limit, and 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.is not bound to detain everybody for the same length of time. It, has aMoreover, the appropriate Government has been left power to revoke or modify the detention order at any earlier time. This point was consider in - Shamrao V. Parulekar v. District Magistrate, Thana, Bombay, 1952 SCR 683, and was decided against theare unable to allow this as her petition has already been rejected on the merits. She wall 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.