# ABDUL KARIM AND OTHERS v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

- **Citation:** [1969] 3 S.C.R. 479
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1969-01-31
- **Case number:** Writ Petition No. 327 of 1968
- **Bench:** J. C. Shah, V. Ramaswami, A. N. Grover
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/abdul-karim-and-others-v-state-of-west-bengal-4605
- **Pages:** 11

## Headnote

c
D
E
F
G
H
Preventive Detention Act IV of 1950 Ss. 3(2), 8, 9, 10 &o 11(1)-Com.
titution of India, Art. 22 (5)-I/ State Government under an obligation
to consider representation of detenu before forwarding to Advisory Board.
The petitioners were detained by orders of detention under s. 3 (2) of
tho Preventive Detention Act IV of 1950. After the grounds of detention
were communicated to them, they made representations to the State Government agaiust their detention. These were considered by the Advisory
Board which reported under section 10 of the Act that there was sufficient
cause for detention in each case and the State confirmed the detention&
under s. 11 (1) di the Acl By petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution, the petitioners challenged the legality of
their detention on the
ground that the representations made hy them against their orders of detention were not considered by the respondent Government, but were
merely forwarded hy it to the Advisory Board.
It was contended on behalf of the. State Government that there was no
obligation on it to consider the representations since an Advisory Board
had been constituted under Section 8 of the Act to consider the cases of.
the detenus and had reported that there was sufficient cause for their detention; and that there was no exp·ress language in Article 22 (5) of the Coll8titution requiring the State Government to consider the representations o'i
the detenus.
An alternative contention was that
the State Government
might be obliged to consider the representat,ion of a detenu only in a case
• where the detention was for a period o! less than three months ar in a case
contemplated by Article 22 (7).
HELD: The orders of detention against the petitioners were illegal
and ultra vires.
It is necessarily implicit in the language of Art.. 22 (5) that the State
Government to whom the representation is made should praperly consider
the representation as expeditiously as possible. The constitution of an
Advisory Board under Section 8 of the Act does not relieve the Stale
Government from the le~al obligation .to consider the representation of
the detenu as soon as it ts received by it, and to take appropriate action
thereon including revocation di the order which it was empowered to do
under section 13 of the Act.
[ 486 Hl
It is manifest that the right under Art. 22 (5) to make a representation has been guaranteed independent o! the duration of the period o!
detention and irrespective of the existence or non-existence of an Advisory
Board. The constitution of an Advisory. Board for the purpose di reporting whether a person should or should not be detained for a period of
more than three months is a very different thing from a right i>f consideration by the State Government whether a person should be detained even
for a single day. Even if a reference has to be made to the Advisory
Board under section 9 of the Act, the appropriate Government is, under
a legal obligation, to consider the representation of the detenu before ruch
a reference is made.
[488 DJ
480
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1969] 3 S.C.R.
All the procedural requirements of Article 22 a:re mandatory in character and even if one of the procedural requirements is not complied with ·
the order of detention would be rendered illegal. [489 Al
'
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 327 of 1968.
Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India for a writ
in the nature of habeas corpus.
R. K. Garg, for the petitioneni.
Debabrata Mukherjee, P. K. Chakravarti and G. S. Chatterjee, for the respondent.
'The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Ramaswami, J. In this case the petitioners have obtained a
rule ~g
upon the respondent, viz., the State of West Bengal,
to show cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be issued
under Art. 3 2 of the Comtitution directing their release from
detention under orders passed under s. 3 ( 2) of the Preventive
Detention Act, 1950 (Act IV of 1950) (hereinafter called the
Act). Cause has be

## Text

A
ABDUL KARIM AND OTHERS
v.
STATE OF WEST BENGAL
January 31, 1969
B
[J. C. SHAH, V. RAMASWAMI AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.)
c
D
E
F
G
H
Preventive Detention Act IV of 1950 Ss. 3(2), 8, 9, 10 &o 11(1)-Com.
titution of India, Art. 22 (5)-I/ State Government under an obligation
to consider representation of detenu before forwarding to Advisory Board.
The petitioners were detained by orders of detention under s. 3 (2) of
tho Preventive Detention Act IV of 1950. After the grounds of detention
were communicated to them, they made representations to the State Government agaiust their detention. These were considered by the Advisory
Board which reported under section 10 of the Act that there was sufficient
cause for detention in each case and the State confirmed the detention&
under s. 11 (1) di the Acl By petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution, the petitioners challenged the legality of
their detention on the
ground that the representations made hy them against their orders of detention were not considered by the respondent Government, but were
merely forwarded hy it to the Advisory Board.
It was contended on behalf of the. State Government that there was no
obligation on it to consider the representations since an Advisory Board
had been constituted under Section 8 of the Act to consider the cases of.
the detenus and had reported that there was sufficient cause for their detention; and that there was no exp·ress language in Article 22 (5) of the Coll8titution requiring the State Government to consider the representations o'i
the detenus.
An alternative contention was that
the State Government
might be obliged to consider the representat,ion of a detenu only in a case
• where the detention was for a period o! less than three months ar in a case
contemplated by Article 22 (7).
HELD: The orders of detention against the petitioners were illegal
and ultra vires.
It is necessarily implicit in the language of Art.. 22 (5) that the State
Government to whom the representation is made should praperly consider
the representation as expeditiously as possible. The constitution of an
Advisory Board under Section 8 of the Act does not relieve the Stale
Government from the le~al obligation .to consider the representation of
the detenu as soon as it ts received by it, and to take appropriate action
thereon including revocation di the order which it was empowered to do
under section 13 of the Act.
[ 486 Hl
It is manifest that the right under Art. 22 (5) to make a representation has been guaranteed independent o! the duration of the period o!
detention and irrespective of the existence or non-existence of an Advisory
Board. The constitution of an Advisory. Board for the purpose di reporting whether a person should or should not be detained for a period of
more than three months is a very different thing from a right i>f consideration by the State Government whether a person should be detained even
for a single day. Even if a reference has to be made to the Advisory
Board under section 9 of the Act, the appropriate Government is, under
a legal obligation, to consider the representation of the detenu before ruch
a reference is made.
[488 DJ
480
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1969] 3 S.C.R.
All the procedural requirements of Article 22 a:re mandatory in character and even if one of the procedural requirements is not complied with ·
the order of detention would be rendered illegal. [489 Al
'
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 327 of 1968.
Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India for a writ
in the nature of habeas corpus.
R. K. Garg, for the petitioneni.
Debabrata Mukherjee, P. K. Chakravarti and G. S. Chatterjee, for the respondent.
'The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Ramaswami, J. In this case the petitioners have obtained a
rule ~g
upon the respondent, viz., the State of West Bengal,
to show cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be issued
under Art. 3 2 of the Comtitution directing their release from
detention under orders passed under s. 3 ( 2) of the Preventive
Detention Act, 1950 (Act IV of 1950) (hereinafter called the
Act). Cause has been shown by Mr. Debabrata Mukherjee and
other coun$eJ on behalf of the respondent to whom notice of the
rule was ordered to be given.
At the conclusion of the hearing of this petition on 15th January, 1969, we directed the release of these petitioners and said
that the reasons would be furnished later. We shall now proceed
to state those reasons.
As regards petitioner No. 2 Sk. Abdul Karim, the order of
detention was made on 17th February, 1968 by tl\.e District Ma,
gistrate of Hooghly and reads as follows :
"No. 230..C
Dated 17-2-1968
Whereas I am satisfied with respect to the person known
as Sk. Abdul Karim, son of late Sk. Nasiruddin of
Mathurdangi, Police-station Chanditala District Hooghly,
that with a view to preventing him from acting in any
· ma!llller prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and
services essential to the eo!Oll).unity, it is necessary so
to do, I therefore in exercise of the powers conferred
by section 3 ( 2) of the Preventive Detention Act; 19 50
make this order directing that the said Sk. Abdul Karim
be detained.
Given under my hand and seal of office.
Sd/ - Illegible
.
. 17-2-68
District Magistrate, Hoogb!y".
On the same date the foilowing grounds of detention were communicated to the detenu :
A
B
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
ABDUL KARIM v. w. BENGAL (Ramaswami, !.)
481
"I. You are being detained in pursuance of a detention order made under sub-section ( 2) of section 3 of
the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 (Act IV of 1950),
on the following groUlllds :
2. That on 2-2-68 at 19.05 hours you were arrested
while carrying 60 kgs. of rice without authority from
Dankuni Bazar towards Dankuni Rly. Station with a
view to despatch the same by train into the statutory
rationing areas of Calcutta and Howrah.
{a) That on 9-2-68 at 14.00 hrs. you were found to
detrain at Dankuni Rly. Station with a bag containing
one maund of rice from Burdwan-Howrah local train.
(b) That on 10-2-68 at 13.55 hrs. you with 2/'3other smugglers were found to carry rice 20 kgs. e.ach,
by train from Dankuni Rly. Station towards Sealdah and
you all detrained at Baranagore off side platform with
unauthorised stocks of rice.
(c) That on 11-2-68 at 08.45 hrs, you with other
smugglers were found c~g 15 kgs. of rice each by
train towards Howrah from Danlruni Rly. Station.
3. You are hereby informed that you may make a
representation to the State Government, as
early
as
possible, on receipt of the detention order and that such
representation should be addressed to the Asstt. Secy. to
the Govt. of West Bfl!lgal, Home Deptt. Special Section,
Writers' Buildings, Calcutta, and forwarded through the
Superintendent of the Jail in which you are detained.
4. You are also informed that under section 10 of the
Preventive Detention Act, 1950 (Act IV of 1950), the
Advisory Board · shall hear you in person and if you
desile to be so heard by the Advisory Board, you should
mtimate such desire in your representation to the State
Government.
Sd/- Illegible
17-2-68
District Magistrate, Hooghly".
On 21st February, 1968, Sk. Abdul Karim made a representation
to the State Government against the order of detention.
On 22nd April, 1968, the Advisory Board made a report under
a
section 10 of the Act stating that there was sufficient cause for
detention of Sk. Abdul Karim.
On 24th July, 1968, the Governor
of West.Bengal confirmed the detention order under section 11(1)
of the Act.
/
482
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1969] 3 S.C.R.
Section 3 of the Act provides :
«3. (1) The Central Government or the State Government may-
( a) If satisfied with respect to any person that with
a view to preventing him from acting in any manner
prejudicial to-
(i) the defence of India, the relatlons of India with
foreign powers or the security of India, or
(ii) the security of the State or the maintenance of
public order, or
(iii) the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community, or
(b) if satisfied with respect to any person who is a
foreigner within the meaning of the Forejgners Act, 1946
(XXXI of 1946), that with a view to regulating his
continued presence in India or with a view to making
arrangements for his expulsion from India, it is necessary so to do, make an order directing that such person
be detained.
( 4) When any order is made or approved by the
State Government under this section, the State Govem!-
ment shall, as soon as may be, report the fact to the
Central Government together with the grqunds on which
the order has been made and such other particulars as
in the opinion of the State Government having bearing
on the necessity for the order".
Sub-sections (2) and (3) of this section empower the District
Magistrate,
Sub-Divisional Magistrate or the Commissioner of
Police in a Presidency Town to exercise the power conferred by
and make the order contemplated in sub-section ( 1), but with the
qualification that any order made thereunder must be reported
forthwith to the Government of the State to which the officer in
question is subordinate with the grounds on which the order has
been made and such other particulars as in his opinion hav.e a bearing on the necessity for the order.
Sub-section ( 3) further pfl'"
vides that no such order made after the commencement of the
Preventive Detention (Second Amendment) Act,
1952,
shall
remain in force for more than twelve days after the making thereof
unless in the meantime it has been approved by the State Government.
Section 7 of the Act reads :
"7. ( 1 ) When a person is detained in pursuance of
a detention order, the authority making the order shall,
.
'\
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
l
ti
c
v
E
F
G
H
ABDUL KARIM v. w. BENGAL (Ramaswami, /.)
<&83
as soon as may be, but not later than five days from
the date of detention, communicate to him the grounds
on which the order has been made, and shall afford him
the earliest opportunity of. making a representation
against the order to the appropriate Governmem:t.
(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall require the
authority to disclose facts which it considers to be
against the public interest to disclose".
Section 8 provides for constitution of one or more Advisory Boards
for the purposes of this Act. Sectfop 9 states :
"In every case where a detention order has been made
under this Act, the appropriate Government shall, within
thirty days from the date of detention under the order,
place before the Advisory Board constituted by it under
section 8 the grounds on which the order has beein made
and the representation, if any, made by the person
affected by the order, and in case where the order has
been made by an officer, also the report by such officer,
under sub-section (3) of section 3".
Section 11 ~cts :
.
I
•
"11. (I ) In any case where the AdVJSOry Board has
reported that there is in its opinion sufficient cause for
the detention of a person, the appropriate Government
may confirm the detention order and CO(!ltinue the detention of the person concerned for such period as it thinks
fit.
( 2) In any case where the Advisory Board has
reported that there is in its opinion no sufficient cause
for the det~tion of the person concerned, the appropriate Government shall revoke the detention order and
cause the person to be released forthwith".
Section llA states :
"11 A. ( 1) 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.
( 2) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection ( 1) 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 period is specified in the
order, continue to remain in force untll the 1st day of
April, 1953, or until the expiration of twelve months
484
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1969] 3 S.C.R.
from the date of dete.ntion, whichever period of detention expires later.
(3) The provisions of sub-section
(2) shall have
effect notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained
in section 3 of the Preventive Detention ( Ameaidment)
Act, 1952 (XXXIV of 1952), but nothing contained
in this section shall affect the power of the appropriate
Governmtl!lt to revoke or modify the detention order at
any earlier time."
Section 13 provides for revocation of a detention order and reads
as follows :-
" 13. ( 1) Without prejudice to the provisions of section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (X of 1897)
a detention order may at any time be revoked or
modified-
( a) notwithstanding that the order has been made
by an officer mentioned in the sub-section ( 2) of section 3, by the State Government to which that officer is
subordinate or by the Central Government; and (b)
notwithstanding that the order has been made by a
State Government or by the Central Government.
(2) The revocation or expiry of a detention order
shall not bar . the making of a fresh detentio.ri order
under section 3 against the same person in any case
where fresh facts have arisen after the date of revocation or expiry on which the Central Government or a
State Government or an officer, as the case may be,
is satisfied that such an order should be made".
The Preventive Detention Act (Act No. 4 of 1950) was enacted by Parliament by virtue of the power conferred on it by
Art. 22 clause (7) of the Constitution read with entries 9 of List
I and 3 of List III of the Seventh Schedule. Article 22 ( 4), ( 5),
( 6) and ( 7) provides as follows :
"22.
( 4) No law providing for
preventive
detention
shall authorise the detention of a person for a longer
period than three months unless--
(a) an Advisory Board consisting of persons who
B
c
I)
E
(1
G
are, or have been, or are qualified to be e.ppointed as
H
Judges of a High Court has reported before the expiration of the said period of three months that there is
in its opinion sufficient cause for sl'ch detention :
'
'
A
B
c
D
E
F
ABDUL KARIM v. w. BENGAL (Ramaswami, /.)
485'
Provided that nothing in this sub-clause shall authorise the detention of any person beyond the maximum
period prescribed by any law made by Parliament under
sub-clause (b) of clause (7); or
(b) such person is detained in accordance with the
provisions of ~
law made by Parliament under subclauses (a) and (b) of clause (7).
( 5) When any person is detained in pursuance of an
order made under any law providing for preventive
detention, the authority making the order shall, as soon
as may be, communicate to such person the grounds on
which the order has been made wd shall afford him the
earliest opportunity of making a representation against
the order.
(6) Nothing in clause (5) shall require the authority
making any such order as is referred to in that clause
to disclose facts which such authority considers to be
against the public interest to disclose.
( 7) Parliament may by law prescribe-
(a) the circumstances ~er which, and the class
or classes of cases in which, a person may be detained
for a period longer than three months under any law
providing for preventive detention without obtaining the
opinioin of the Advisory Board in accordance with the
provisions of sub-clause (a) of clause ~ 4);
(b) the maximum period for which ·any person may
in any class or classes of cases be detained under any
law for preventive detention; and
( c) the procedure to be followed by an Advisory
Board in an inquiry under sub-clause (a) ol clause ( 4) ".
It was argued by Mr. Garg that the representations of the·
petitioners were not considered by the respondent Government of
West Bengal; but were merely forwarded by the respondent to the
Advisory Board without any consideratiQII.
It was contended
G
that the detention of the petitioners was bad in Jaw, because there
was a failure on the part of the Government to consider the representations submitted by the petitioners before forwarding them to
the Advisory Board. In the first counter-affidavit of the respondent it was asserted by Mr. Monoranjan Dey that "there was no
requirement of law which compelled the consideration by the State
Government ol the deteirlu's representation before being forwarded
to the Advisory Board for consideration".
In the second counter.
affidavit Mr. Monoranjan Dey said that "for securing ~n unprejudiced and impartial consideration of the represqntatton of the
486
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1969] 3 S.C.R.
petitioner by an independent Statutory Authority, the State Government refrained at that stage from expressing its views on the
.representations to the Advisory Board". The counter-lffi.davits of
the respqn.dent are somewhat vague and the allegation of the petitioner has not been categorically denied.
Mr. Debabrata Mulilierjee, however, said in the course of argwnent that the case may be
decided on the footing that the representations were not considered
by the State Government before sending them to the. Advisory
Board.
It was cqntended on behalf oi the respondent that there
was no obligation on the State Government to consider the representations since the Advisory Board had been constituted under
section 8 of the Act to consider the case of the de~'us and to report
to the State Govelllll1lent whether there was sufficient cause for
their .detention.
The question involved in this case depends upon
the construction of Art. 22 ( 5) of the Constitution which has
already been reproduced.
Though the Constitution has recognised the necessity of law~
as to prevfl!ltive detention, it has also provided certain safeguards
to mitigate their harshness by placing fetters on the legislative
power conferred on this topic.
Article 22 lays down the pennissible limits of legislation empowering preventive detention. Article
22 prescribes the minimum procedure that must be included in
any law permitting prevf1!ltive detention and if such requirements
are not observed the detention iniringes the fundamental right of
the detenu guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution.
The said requirements are : ( 1 ) that !!10 law can provide
for detention for a period of more than three months unless the
sufficiency for the cause of the detention is investigated by an
Advisory Board within the said period of three months; (2) that
the State law cannot authorise detention beyond the maximum
period prescribed by Parliament under the powers given to it in
Art. 22 clause (7); (3) that Parliament also cannot make a law
authorising detention for a period beyond three months without the
intervention of an Advisory Board unless the law conforms to the
conditions laid down in clause ( 7) of Art. 22; ( 4) provision has
also been made to enable Parliament to prescribe the procedure to
be followed by Advisory Boards. Apart from these enabling and
disabling provisions certain procedural rights have been expressly
safeguarded by clause ( 5) of Art. 22. A person detained under a
law of preventive detention has a right to obtain information as to
the grounds of detention and has also the right to make a represeintation protesting against an order of preventive detention. Article
22 ( 5) does not expressly say to whom the representatlon is to be
made and how the detainmg authority is to deal with the representation.
But it is necessarily implicit in the language ofArt. 22(5)
that the State Government to whom the representation is made
should properly consider the representation as expeditiously as
A
B
c
D
E
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
ff
ABDUL KARIM v. w. BENGAL (Ramaswami, I.)
497
possible. The constitution of an Advisory Board under section 8
of the Act does not relieve the State Government from the legal
obligation to consider the representation of the detenu as soon as
it is received by it. On behalf of the respondent it was said that
there was no express Iainguage in Art. 22 ( 5) requiring the State
Government to consider the representation of the detenu. But it
is a necessary implication of the language of Art. 22 ( 5) that the
State Government should consider the representation made by the
detenu as soon as it is made, apply its mind to it and, if necessary,
take appropriate action. In our opinion, the constitutional right
!~make a representation guaranteed by Art. 22(5) must be taken
to include by necessary implication the constitutional right to a
proper consideration of the representation by the authority to
whom it is made. The right of representation under Art. 22 ( 5)
is a valuable constitutional right and is· not a mere formality. It
is, therefore, not possible to accept the argument of the respondent that the State Government is not under a legal obligation to
consider the representation of the detenu or that the representation must be kept in cold storage in the archives of the Secretariat
till the time or occasion for sending it to the Advisory Board is
reached. If the viewpoint contended for by the respondent is
correct, the constitutional right under Art. 22 ( 5) would be rendered iJlusory. Take for instance a case of detention of a person
on account of mistaken identity. If the order cf detention has been
made against A and a different person B is arrested and detained
by the police authorities because of similarity of names or some
such cause, it cannot be reasonably said that the State Government should wait for the report of the Advisory Board before releasing the wrong person from detention. It is obvious that apart
from the procedure of reference to the Aclvisory Board, the State
Government has ample power under ~ectiOn 13 of the Act to reyoke nny ord~r of detention at any time. If the right of representation in such a case is to be real and not illusory, there is a legal
obligation imposed upon the State Government to consider the representation and to take appropriate action thereon. Otherwise the
right of representation conferred by Art. 22 ( 5) of the Constitution
would be rendered nugatory. The argument of Mr. Debabrata
Mukherjee as regards the construction of Art. 22 ( 5) cannot a.!so
be correct for another reason. Under Art. 22 clause ( 4) of the
Constitution, it is open to Parliament to make a law providing for
preventive detention for a period of Jess than three months without the cause of detention being investigated by an Advisory
Board. It is clear that the right of representation conferred by
clause ( 5) of Art. 22 does not depend upon the duration of period
nf detention. Even if the period of detention is less than three
months, the detenu has a constitutional right of representation.
It is also important to notice that under Art. 22(7) Parliament
may by law prescribe the circumstances under which and the class
488
SUPllEME COURT llEPORTS
[1969] 3 S.C.R.
or classes of cases in which a person may be detained for a period
longer than three months under any law providing for preventive
detention without obtaining the opinion of an Advisory Board. It
cannot possibly be argued that if Parliament makes a law contemplated by Art. 22(7) of the Constitution, the detaining authority
is under no legal obligation to consider the representation made
by the detenu under Art. 22(5).
Faced with this difficulty counsel on behalf of the
respondent conceded that in a case where the detention is for a
period of Jess than three months or in a case CQllltemplated
Qy
Art. 22(7), the State Government will be legally obliged to consider the representation of the detenu. But it was suggested that
in a case where a reference has to be made to the Advisory Board
it was not necessary for the State Government to consider the
repres~ation. We are unable to accept this argument as correct.
There is no such dichotomy in the scheme of Art. 22 ( 5) of the
Constitution and there is no reason why it must be interpreted in
a different manner for the two classes of detenus. It is manifest
that the right under Art. 22 ( 5) to make a representatiOl!l has been
guaranteed independent of the duration of the period of detention
and irrespective of the existence or non-existence of an Advisory
Board. The constitution of an Advisory Board for the purpose
of reporting whether a person should or should not be detained
for a period of more than three j!}flnths is a very different thing
from a right of consideration by ilie State Government whether
a person should be detained even for a sjngle day.
The obligation of the detaining authority to consider the representation is
different from the obligation of the Advisory Board to consider the
representation later on at the time of hearing the referooce.
It
follows, therefore, that even if reference is to be made to the
Advisory Board under section 9 of the Act, the appropriate Government is under legal obligation to consider the representation
of the detenu before such a reference is made.
In the present case, Sk. Abdul Karim has alleged that his representation was not considered by the State Government before
it was forwarded to the Advisory Board. This allegation is not
controverted in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the responc!Qnt. What is at stake in this case is the issue of personal freedom which is one of the basic principles of a democratic State.
A predominant position and role is given in our Constituti9n to
human personality and human freedom as the ultimate source of
all moral and spiritual values. Preventive det~ntion is a serious
invasion of personal liberty, and, therefore, the Constitution has
provided procedural safeguards against the improper exercise of
the power of preventive detention.
Al! the procedural requirements of Article 22 are in our opinion maindatory in character and
A
c
D
E
F
G
H
ABDUL KARIM v. w. BENGAL (Ramaswami, J.)
489
A
even if one of the procedural requirement is not complied with,
the order of detention would be rendered illegal.
Accordingly,
the order of detention dated 17-2-1968 made a11ainst petitioner
No. 2, Sk. Abdul Karim aod the subsequent order of the Gover·
nor of West Bengal dated 24th April, 1968 confirming the order
Of detention must be held to be illegal and u/Jra vires and peti·
B tioner No. 2 Sk, Abdul Karim was entitled to be released.
In the case of petitioners Nos. 5, Nirmal Chandra Jana, No.
6 SL Ibrahim and No. 8 Nur Mohd. the order of detentioo sullers
. from the same legal defect as the order of detention in the case
of petitioner No. 2, Sk. Abdul Karim.
For the reasons already
stated we hold that the order of detention and the order of cone firmation under section 11 of the Act in the case of petitioners
Nos. 5, 6 ~
8 were also illegal and ultra vi res and the petitioners
were consequently entitled to be released
R.K.P.S.
Petition allowed.