Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 144 views

    Makhan Singh Vs State of Punjab

    Uploaded by

    Shahjahan Mohammed
    The Supreme Court of India heard an appeal from Makhan Singh, who was detained under the Defence of India Regulations in 1962 during a period when the President had declared a national emergency. The High Court of Punjab had rejected Singh's habeas corpus petition challenging the legality of his detention. The Supreme Court had to determine whether Singh's detention was lawful and what impact the Presidential declaration of emergency had on citizens' legal rights and ability to challenge detention. It ultimately found that the reasons for Singh's detention were vague and false based on the facts presented.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Makhan Singh Vs State of Punjab

    Uploaded by

    Shahjahan Mohammed
    144 views3 pages
    The Supreme Court of India heard an appeal from Makhan Singh, who was detained under the Defence of India Regulations in 1962 during a period when the President had declared a national emergency. The High Court of Punjab had rejected Singh's habeas corpus petition challenging the legality of his detention. The Supreme Court had to determine whether Singh's detention was lawful and what impact the Presidential declaration of emergency had on citizens' legal rights and ability to challenge detention. It ultimately found that the reasons for Singh's detention were vague and false based on the facts presented.

    Original Description:

    Makhan Singh vs State of Punjab

    Original Title

    Makhan Singh vs State of Punjab

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court of India heard an appeal from Makhan Singh, who was detained under the Defence of India Regulations in 1962 during a period when the President had declared a national emergency. The High Court of Punjab had rejected Singh's habeas corpus petition challenging the legality of his detention. The Supreme Court had to determine whether Singh's detention was lawful and what impact the Presidential declaration of emergency had on citizens' legal rights and ability to challenge detention. It ultimately found that the reasons for Singh's detention were vague and false based on the facts presented.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    144 views3 pages

    Makhan Singh Vs State of Punjab

    Uploaded by

    Shahjahan Mohammed
    The Supreme Court of India heard an appeal from Makhan Singh, who was detained under the Defence of India Regulations in 1962 during a period when the President had declared a national emergency. The High Court of Punjab had rejected Singh's habeas corpus petition challenging the legality of his detention. The Supreme Court had to determine whether Singh's detention was lawful and what impact the Presidential declaration of emergency had on citizens' legal rights and ability to challenge detention. It ultimately found that the reasons for Singh's detention were vague and false based on the facts presented.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 3

    Makhan Singh

    Versus

    State of Punjab
    Citation: [1964] 4 SCR 797

    Bench: Mr. Justice P.B. Gajendragadkar, Mr. Justice A.K. Sarkar, Mr. Justice K. Subba Rao,
    Mr. Justice K.N. Wanchoo, Mr. Justice M. Hidayatullah, Mr. Justice K.C. Das Gupta, and Mr.
    Justice C. Shah
    Parties:
    Petitioner: Makhan Singh
    Respondent: State of Punjab

    Facts:
    The appellant was detained on October 25, 1962, for offences under the Indian Penal Code.
    In accordance with Article 352 of the Constitution, the President of India had on October 26,
    1962, proclaimed a national emergency as a result of the Chinese attack on September 8,
    1962. On November 3, 1962, a law was passed suspending Indian citizens' capability to
    supplicate any court to apply their indigenous rights under Articles 21 and 22 while the
    exigency declared on October 26, 1962, was in effect. This was done in agreement with
    Article 359(1) of the Indian Constitution. A detention order was issued against the appellant
    on November 20, 1962. The appellant received the order of detention while already in jail.
    The Punjab government imprisoned the appellant for engaging in acts detrimental to India's
    defence, including spreading false information about joining the armed forces and pushing
    people not to contribute to the National Defence Fund. The appellant claimed that his
    detention had been unlawful. After the Punjab and Haryana High Court denied Detenu
    Makhan Singh's habeas corpus writ petition, he appealed to the Supreme Court of India under
    Article 136 (Special Leave Petition) of the Constitution. The High Court of Allahabad in a
    similar case had favoured the detenue’s, and it was the difference of opinion in the Bombay
    High Court and Punjab High Court that lead to the conformation of the Special Bench for the
    appeal.
    Issues:
     What was a Presidential Order issued under Article 359(l) truly for and what impact
    did it have?
     What sort of proceedings are prohibited by the Presidential Order issued in
    accordance with Article 359(1)?
     If a detainee filed a habeas corpus application under section 491 of the Criminal
    Procedure Code rather than article 226 of the Constitution, did the bar established by
    the Presidential Order apply?
    Since the purpose of Article 359(1) is to suspend citizens' rights to move to any court, the
    Presidential Order's effect may be that any proceedings that may be ongoing as of the date
    of the Order remain suspended during the time that the Order is in effect and may be
    revived when the said Order ceases to be in operation. Additionally, because the Order
    removes citizens' rights to move to any court, new proceedings cannot be brought by
    citizens after the Order has been issued. After the Order has been issued, any new
    proceeding that would violate Art. 359(1) and the Presidential Order made under it would
    have to be dismissed as incompetent.
    Judgement:
    The jailed Makhan Singh, whose petition for habeas corpus was rejected by the Punjab High
    Court, has given us special permission to hear this appeal. On October 22, 1962, it appears
    that an F. I. R. was submitted at the Jandiale Police Station, alleging that a number of people,
    including the appellant, had violated Sections 307, 324, 364 and 367 of the I. P. C. The
    investigation that was launched as soon as the aforementioned F.I.R. was received led to the
    appellant's detention on October 25, 1962. On October 26, 1962, the president declared a
    state of emergency. The appellant was remanded into the custody of the Amritsar Sub-
    Divisional Magistrate on November 1, 1962. When the appellant was being held in custody,
    he was permitted to interview his acquaintances, and between November 3 and November 19,
    1962, around nine people interrogated him. According to Rule 30(1)(b) of the Defence of
    India Regulations, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules"), a detention order was issued
    against the appellant on November 20, 1962. The appellant received this order on November
    21, 1962, and it appears that he was taken to the Hissar jail at that time. After being returned
    to Amritsar on January 30, 1963, he filed the current writ petition on February 9 of that same
    year.
    The principal claim the appellant made in his petition contesting the legality of his custody
    was that the reasons given in the order of detention were "extremely imprecise, contrived,
    and utterly false." According to the detention order, the appellant was detained because it was
    discovered that he was "engaging in activities prejudicial to the Defence of India and Civil
    Defence by making propaganda against joining the armed and civil defence forces and by
    urging peopled not to contribute to the National Defence Fund." The ruling further said that
    in light of his actions, it had been determined that his detention was required to prevent him
    from engaging in the aforementioned prejudicial conduct.
    On March 4, 1963, the appellant filed a new affidavit, in which he said that the deponent's
    imprisonment prior to the emergency declaration on October 26, 1962, and the Chinese
    invasion demonstrated unequivocally that the claims against the deponent were untrue and
    made up. The appellant provided a further justification for his first claim that the
    justifications for the detention order were false and concocted by means of this
    supplementary affidavit.
    Rationale:
     The purpose of Article 359(1) is to suspend citizens' rights to petition any court. As a
    result, the Presidential Order may have the effect of suspending any ongoing legal
    action at the time it is issued, allowing it to resume once it is no longer in effect, and
    prohibiting citizens from starting new legal actions after it has been issued.
     According to Section 491(1)(b), among other things, any High Court may order the
    release of a person who has been wrongfully or unjustly imprisoned in public custody
    whenever it sees fit.
     A third party or the court itself may seek for the release of a detainee who has been
    unjustly or unlawfully detained, according to Section 491(1)(b).

    Compiled by
    Mohammed Shahjahan

    You might also like