Skip to main content

Article 22

 Article 22: Protection against arrest and detention in certain cases

By: Anjali Tiwari

1) No person who is arrested should be held in custody without being notified of the grounds for his detention as quickly as possible, nor shall he be denied the opportunity to consult with and be defended by a lawyer of his choice.

2) Every person who is arrested and detained in custody must be brought before the nearest magistrate within twenty-four hours of their arrest, excluding the time required to travel from the place of arrest to the magistrate's court, and no such person may be held in custody beyond that time without the permission of a magistrate.

3) Clauses (1) and (2) do not apply to: (a) any person who is an enemy alien for the time being; or (b) any person who is arrested or imprisoned under any law requiring preventative detention.

4) No law authorizing preventive detention for more than three months shall be valid unless (a) an Advisory Board consisting of persons who are, or have been, or are qualified to be appointed as, Judges of a High Court has reported before the end of the three-month period that there is, in its opinion, sufficient cause for such detention.

5) When a person is detained in accordance with an order issued under a law allowing for preventive detention, the authority issuing the order must inform the person of the grounds for the detention as quickly as possible and provide him with the earliest chance to object to the order.

6) Nothing in section (5) requires the authority issuing any such order referred to in that clause to disclose facts that the authority judges to be contrary to the public interest.

7) Parliament may prescribe by law: 

a) the circumstances in which a person may be detained for more than three months under any law providing for preventive detention without first seeking the opinion of an Advisory Board in accordance with the provisions of subclause (a) of clause (4); and the class or classes of cases in which a person may be detained for more than three months under any law providing for preventive detention without first seeking the opinion of an Advisory Board in accordance with the provisions of subclause (a) of clause (4); and 

b) the maximum period for which any person may be detained under any law providing for preventive detention in any class or classes of cases.

Pre – Golak Nath Era

The Indian Constitution was revised in 1951, and the much-discussed Article(s) 31A and 31B were included. Article 31B established the 9th Schedule, which specified that any law enacted under it could not be challenged for violating Article 13(2) of the Constitution's Fundamental Rights. According to Article 13(2), the Parliament shall not create any law that abridges the rights conferred under Part III, and any such law shall be null and void to that extent.

Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan

The constitutionality of the 17th Constitutional Amendment, which added about 44 acts to the 9th Schedule, was decided by a five-judge bench in Sajjan Singh. Though all of the judges agreed with Shankari Prasad's verdict, the concurring opinion by Hidyatullah and Mudholkar JJ cast doubt on Parliament's unrestricted capacity to modify the Constitution and constrain people' fundamental rights for the first time.

Golak Nath v. the State of Punjab

Three writ petitions were consolidated in this case. The first was a protest by Golak Nath's children against the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 being included in the Ninth Schedule. The placement of the Mysore Land Reforms Act in the Ninth Schedule was contested in the other two cases. It is an 11-judge bench decision in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court, by a 6:5 majority, decided that fundamental rights were not covered by the Constitution's amendment, based on the following reasoning: The power of Parliament to change the Constitution is drawn from Article 245, read in conjunction with Entry 97 of List I of the Constitution. Article 368 was explicitly meant to exclusively provide for the Amendment Procedure and nothing more.

The Court further stated that a modification to the Constitution is included in the definition of 'law' under Article 13(2). As a result, any change that violated the Fundamental Rights was null and void.

The argument that the authority to change the Constitution is a sovereign power separate from legislative power and hence beyond the reach of judicial review was dismissed.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

POONAM VERMA VS. ASHWIN PATEL & ORS (10 MAY, 1996)

     POONAM VERMA VS. ASHWIN PATEL & ORS (10 MAY, 1996) INTRODUCTION The medical profession is perhaps the noblest profession among any remaining professions in India. For a patient, the specialist resembles God. What's more, God is trustworthy. In any case, that is the patient's opinion. As a general rule, doctors are individuals. Furthermore, to fail is human. Doctors might submit a slip-up. Doctors might be careless. The care staff might be imprudent. Two demonstrations of carelessness might bring about a lot more pressing issue. It very well might be because of gross carelessness. The sky is the limit. In such a situation, it is basic to figure out who was careless, and under what conditions. For this situation, the Supreme Court separated carelessness, impulsiveness, and foolishness. An individual is supposed to be a careless individual when he/she unintentionally submits a demonstration of exclusion and disregards a positive obligation that he/she ought to ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur ...
1 comment
Read more

Effects of Non-Registration

 Effects of Non-Registration The Companies Act, 2013 evidently highlights that the main essential for any organization to turn into a company is to get itself registered. A company cannot come into existence until it gets registered. But no such obligation has been imposed for firms by the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. If a firm is not registered it does not cease to be called as a firm, it still exists in the eyes law. Certainly, such a big advantage is not absolute but is subjected to a lot of limitations which we will study further. Non-registration of a firm simply means that the business skips the formalities of incorporation and ceases to exist in the eyes of the law. section 58 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 deals with the procedure of incorporation. Likewise, the meaning of non-registration is the exact opposite of registration, meaning when a firm does not go through the procedure of incorporation or start carrying on activities without getting registered. Effects of ...
Post a Comment
Read more