Considering that the State is presumed to have a government that conducts itself in a reasonable way and also presuming that its officers usually will be reasonable men, it cannot be said that in making “satisfaction of the government” as the standard for judging prejudicial acts of persons who are subject to the Top Law Firms Chandigarh of preventive detention section 3 in any way contravenes article 22 of the constitution. observed: “A man undoubtedly guilty of murder must yet be released if due forms of law have not been followed in his conviction.
No doubt it was taken by the respondents to show that the title deeds of the appellant’s properties were deposited with them as security for the moneys advanced by them, and to obviate a possible plea that the deeds were left with them for other purposes, as indeed was contended by the appellant in his written statement, taking advantage of the non-registration of the memorandum in question. and the maintenance of public order.
The restraints provided by the Constitution on the legislative powers or the executive authority of the State thus operate as guarantees of life and personal liberty of the individu- als. They form part of the liberty of a citizen but the limita- tion imposed by the word “personal”leads me to believe that those rights are not covered by the expression personal liberty. It also conferred an express power of sale on the mortgagee.
These are subjects which concern the life and the very existence of the State. Genealogy of the first respondent-Plaintiff and Tarawati Devi are as under:- Mahabir Prasad Tej Pratap Narayan Jagadambi Prasad Rudra Mahendra Kanta Kanji Girish Chandra Prasad (1960) Narayan Prasad Prasad Prasad Tarawati Devi (died in 1985) died issueless died issueless Shailendra Prasad Suresh Chandra Prasad (1942) Plaintiff Deoki Devi Sita Devi Umashanker Prasad (1970) Died died issueless (died unmarried) The genealogy of parental side of Tarawati Devi is as under:- Dhanukdhari Sahay Tarawati Devi Laxmi Devi Raxn Devi Baidya Nath (Defendant) nThe Advocate Chandigarh High Court Court referred to the case of’ In the matter of Commissioner of Income-tax, C.
The contents and subject matters of articles 19 and 21 are thus not the same and they proceed to deal with the rights covered by their respective words from totally different angles. ” It seems very arguable that in the whole set-up of Part III of our Constitution these principles only remain guaranteed by article 21. The document purports only to record a transaction which had been concluded and under which the rights and liabilities had been orally agreed upon.
But that is far from intend- ing to reduce the bargain to writing and make the document 0the basis of the rights and liabilities of the parties. The whole intent and purpose of the law of preventive detention would be defeated if satis- faction of the authority concerned was subject to such an objective standard and was also subject to conditions as to legal proof and procedure. In agreement with ,the Chandigarh High Court Advocate Court, we are of opinion,.
” The Constitu- tion, in article 19, and also in other articles in Part III, thus attempts to strike a balance between individ- ual liberty and the general interest of the society. As already mentioned in respect of each of the rights specified in sub-clauses of article 19 (1) specific limitations in respect of each is provided, while the expression “personal 106 liberty” Advocate in High Court Chandigarh article 21 is generally controlled by the gener- al expression “procedure established by law.
Some days later when the balance was advanced, another memorandum was delivered superseding the earlier one, and this was a formal document stating the essential terms of the transaction “hereby agreed” and referred to the moneys “hereby secured”. Lord Macmillan, after reviewing the earlier decisions of the Board, held that the document required registration, observing, “where, as here, the parties professing to create a mortgage by a deposit of title deeds contemporaneously enter into a contractual agreement, in writing, which is made an integral part of the transaction, and is itself an operative instrument and not merely evidential, such a document must, under the statute, be registered.
that the memorandum delivered by the appellant along with the title deeds (1) 66 I. on the other hand, the question as framed assumes that the return was signed by the illiterate assessee but that the pen affixing the signature was that of his son nKedar Nath Saha (1) the title deeds were deposited accompa- nied by a memorandum when part of the advance arranged for was made. concurring),–Even assuming that the Extradition Treaty of 1869 subsisted after the merger of the Tonk State, by providing for extradition for additional offences the Extradition Act of 1903 did not derogate from the provisions of the Treaty of 5869 or the rights of Indian citizens thereunder, and the arrest and surrender of the appellant under s.
” Turning now to the memorandum before us, it is clear, on the face of it, that the parties did not intend thereby to create the charge. So read there is no conflict between articles 19 and 21. The Secretary of State for Home Affairs(1), Scrutton LJ. 7 of the Act was not, therefore, rendered unlawful by anything contained in the said Treaty. and PATANJALI SASTRI J. Every citizen is presumed to know what behaviour is prejudicial to the life of the State or to its existence as an ordered State.
In the 7th Schedule jurisdiction to make the law on this subject has been given for reasons connected with defence etc. By its very nature the subject is such that it implies detention on the judgment of the authority entrusted with the making of the order.