NDLI: Ujagar Singh Vs. The State of The Punjab

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Preventive Detention Act (IV of 1950)
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Preventive Detention Act, 1950 (4 of 1950)
Case Type	Writ Petition
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Case Disposed Off
Headnote	Preventive Detention Act (IV of 1950), SJ. 3, 12-Detention order-Non-specification of period of detention-Ground supplied vague and same as in earlier order-Particulars supplied after '1- months-Legality of detention-Duty to supply particulars as soon as may be'-Form of detention order-Order signed by Home Secretary-Validity. Non-specification of any definite period in a detention order made under s. 3 of the Preventive Detention Act, IV of 1950, is not a material omission rendering the order invalid in view of the provisions contained in clauses (4) (a) and (7) (a) of Ar~ 22 of the Constitution and •· 12 of the Act. An order of detention which expressly states that the Governor of the State concerned was satisfied of the necessity of making such an order and that it was made by the order of the Governor i' not defective merely because it is signed by the Home Secretary. Communication of the grounds of the order need not be made directly by the authority making by he order but may be made through recognised channels prescribed by the administrative rules of business. The past conduct or antecedent history of a person can be taken into account in making a detention order, and as a. matter of fact, it is largely from prior events showing tendencies or inclination of a man that an inference could be drawn whether he is likely even in the future to act in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. If the authority making an order is satisfied that the ground on which the detenue was detained on a former occasion is still available and that there was need for detention on its basis no mala fides can be attributed to the authority from the fact that the ground alleged for the second detention is the same as that of the first detention. Whether grounds have been communicated "as soon as may be" must depend on the facts of each case. No arbitrary time limit can be laid down.The recent rulings of the Supreme Court establish (a) that mere vagueness of grounds standing by itself and without leading to an inference of mala fides or lack of good faith is not a justifiable issue in a court of law for the necessity of making the order, inasmuch as the ground or grounds on which the order of detention was made is a matter for ·the subjective satisfaction of the Government or of the detaining authority ; ( b) that there i• nothing in the Act to prevent particulars of the grounds being furnished to the detenue within a reasonable time so that he may have the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the detention order-what is reasonable time being dependent on the facts of each case; (c) that failure to furnish grounds with the speedy addition of such particulars as would enable the detenue to make a representation at the earliest opportunity against the detention order can be considered by a court of law as an invasion of a fundamental right or safeguard guaranteed by the Constitution, viz., being given the earliest opportunity to make a representation; and (d) that no new grounds could be supplied to strengthen or fortify the original order of detention. Where the petitioners against whom detention orders were made were given only vague grounds and there was inexcusable delay of nearly 4 months in acquainting them of the particulars, field that their detention was illegal and they should be released.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice N. Chandrasekhara Aiyar
Neutral Citation	1951 INSC 10
Petitioner	Ujagar Singh
Respondent	The State Of The Punjab
SCR	[1952] 1 S.C.R. 756
Judgement Date	1951-02-23
Case Number	149

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Ujagar Singh Vs. The State of The Punjab

Please Log-in to view this content

The State of Bombay Vs. Purushottam Jog Naik

Khaidem Ibocha Singh Etc. Vs. State of Manipur

State Legal Aid Committee, J & K Vs. State of J & K and Ors.

Makhan Singh Tarsikka Vs. The State of Punjab

Naranjan Singh Nathawan Vs. The State of Punjab

Choudhury Dharam Singh Rathi Vs. The State of Punjab and Others

Shamarao V. Parulekar Vs. The District Magistrate, Thana, Bombay and Two Others

Shibban Lal Saksena Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Others.

Kshetra Gogoi Vs. State of Assam

Ujagar Singh Vs. The State of The Punjab

Ujagar Singh Vs. The State of The Punjab

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

The State of Bombay Vs. Purushottam Jog Naik

Khaidem Ibocha Singh Etc. Vs. State of Manipur

State Legal Aid Committee, J & K Vs. State of J & K and Ors.

Makhan Singh Tarsikka Vs. The State of Punjab

Naranjan Singh Nathawan Vs. The State of Punjab

Choudhury Dharam Singh Rathi Vs. The State of Punjab and Others

Shamarao V. Parulekar Vs. The District Magistrate, Thana, Bombay and Two Others

Shibban Lal Saksena Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Others.

Kshetra Gogoi Vs. State of Assam

Ujagar Singh Vs. The State of The Punjab