Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.25 seconds)
In Re: Shri Sham Lal vs Unknown on 18 January, 1978 cites

A.K. Gopalan vs The State Of Madras.Union Of India: ... on 19 May, 1950

But, the majority of Judges of this Court could not see how even a distinction between the fundamental rights to personal liberty and a statutory right to personal liberty could possibly help a detenu in preventive detention when the fundamental right to personal liberty protected by Article 21 itself guaranteed protection by "law" and this "law", according to Gopalan's case, was 'lex' or only statutory law where 'preventive detention was involved as it was in the Habeas Corpus cases. If the enforcement of that protection of personal liberty by statutory law was specifically suspended by the Presidential Order how did any right of enforcement of the statutory protection to personal freedom still remain active? To say that it did seem an obvious contradiction to the majority. Moreover, the distinction made by Khanna J. lost all its importance when the majority confined the suspension of enforcement only to what could be done under Articles 226 and 32 of the Constitution.
Supreme Court of India Cites 106 - Cited by 1309 - H J Kania - Full Document

State Of Madhya Pradesh & Anr vs Thakur Bharat Singh on 23 January, 1967

23. With regard to one of the cases cited before us, State of Madhya Pradesh v. Thakur Bharat Singh , it was pointed out that Shah J., had upheld the view that, although, the validity of a provision empowering preventive detention enacted during the emergency could not be challenged due to Article 358, yet, if it was made before the declaration of emergency, it could be so challenged and declared void. Commenting on this case, the majority view, expressed by me, was (at p. 1312) :
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 150 - J C Shah - Full Document

Additional District Magistrate, ... vs S. S. Shukla Etc. Etc on 28 April, 1976

2. I am afraid I am unable to concur with the majority view on the case before us which arises out of the publication of a. news item in the Times of India newspaper of 7 January, 1978, on, which a notice to show cause why proceedings for contempt of Court be not initiated against the Editor of the newspaper was issued. I think that it is a serious matter if persons in the position of those whose names are given in the offending news item as having subscribed to a document containing a vituperous attack upon a particular judgment of this Court reported in Additional District Magistrate, Jabalpur v. S. Shukla , are really signatories of this document. The attack is primarily irrational and abusive even if it is partially based on ignorance and the rest on misconception. The view of this Court in that case was that the effect of the Presidential Order under Article 359 of the Constitution considered there was to disable High Courts from investigating questions relating to violation of the fundamental rights to personal liberty, protected by Article 21, in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Supreme Court of India Cites 248 - Cited by 19 - A N Ray - Full Document
1