A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

This case deals with the interpretation of Article 22(4)(a) of the Constitution of India in the context of preventive detention laws, particularly the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 as amended. The primary legal issue pertained to whether the detention of a person beyond three months required the Advisory Board to specifically opine that the detention beyond that duration was justified. The Supreme Court’s majority held that the Advisory Board’s role was only to determine whether there was sufficient cause for the detention itself, and not to prescribe or assess the period beyond three months. Justice A.K. Sarkar dissented, arguing that the Constitution intended the Advisory Board to evaluate the necessity of extended detention. The judgment significantly clarified the scope of constitutional protections under Article 22 in preventive detention matters and affirmed the validity of Section 11(1) of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950.

Keywords: Preventive Detention, Advisory Board, Article 22(4)(a), Constitution of India, Habeas Corpus, Fundamental Rights, Detention Order, Period of Detention, Public Interest, Judicial Review.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgement Cause Title: Puranlal Lakhanpal v. Union of India

ii) Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 96 of 1957

iii) Judgement Date: 17 September 1957

iv) Court: Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum: Bhagwati, Jafer Imam, S.K. Das, J.L. Kapur, and A.K. Sarkar, JJ.

vi) Author: Majority opinion by Justice S.K. Das; dissenting opinion by Justice A.K. Sarkar

vii) Citation: [1958] SCR 458

viii) Legal Provisions Involved:

• Article 22(4)(a) of the Constitution of India

• Section 11(1) of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 (as amended in 1951)

• Section 3, 7, 8, 9, 10 of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950

ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case (if any): None directly overruled

x) Law Subjects: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Human Rights, Preventive Detention Law

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The judgment arose from a constitutional challenge against the preventive detention order issued by the Union of India against Puranlal Lakhanpal under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950. The crux of the matter was the interpretation of Article 22(4)(a) of the Constitution regarding the duration of detention and the Advisory Board’s role. The detenu was apprehended for acts considered prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India, including alleged connections with foreign elements and anti-national propaganda. The Advisory Board confirmed the detention but did not specify whether the detention beyond three months was justified. The Supreme Court was tasked with interpreting whether such confirmation complied with constitutional safeguards.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

On 21 July 1956, the Government of India detained Puranlal Lakhanpal under Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950. The grounds were served under Section 7 on 24 July 1956, and the case was referred to an Advisory Board under Section 8. The Board opined that there was sufficient cause for detention. Consequently, under Section 11(1), the government confirmed the order for a twelve-month detention.

Puranlal moved the Punjab High Court under Article 226 for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that the order was unconstitutional since it extended beyond three months without a specific report from the Advisory Board justifying the prolonged duration. After dismissal by the High Court, he appealed to the Supreme Court.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i) Whether the expression “such detention” in Article 22(4)(a) refers only to the initial preventive detention or to detention exceeding three months, necessitating a specific report from the Advisory Board for the extended period?

ii) Whether Section 11(1) of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, permitting continued detention without a separate finding on extended duration, was ultra vires the Constitution?

iii) Whether the grounds of detention communicated under Section 7 were vague and in violation of Article 22(5)?

iv) Whether the government’s refusal to disclose detailed particulars citing public interest under Article 22(6) was justified?

v) Whether the order of detention was passed mala fide?

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The counsels for Petitioner / Appellant submitted that:

The term “such detention” in Article 22(4)(a) referred to detention exceeding three months, and therefore, the Advisory Board must explicitly opine whether there was sufficient cause for extending detention beyond that threshold[1].

They argued that Section 11(1) was unconstitutional to the extent it allowed extended detention based solely on a general affirmation of the legality of detention, without specific reasoning for the prolonged period[2].

They further contended that the grounds of detention were vague, especially in relation to allegations of contact with foreign agents and financial aid from hostile nations, thus denying an effective opportunity to make a representation as mandated by Article 22(5)[3].

Additionally, the refusal of the government to disclose details under Article 22(6) curtailed the petitioner’s fundamental rights[4].

Lastly, the detention order was challenged as mala fide, allegedly driven by political motives due to the appellant’s criticism of government policy on Kashmir in the international press[5].

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The counsels for Respondent submitted that:

The phrase “such detention” refers to the general concept of preventive detention, not merely detention beyond three months. Thus, once the Advisory Board confirms there is sufficient cause for preventive detention, the government has the authority to determine the period, including extensions[6].

The Preventive Detention Act, as amended, complied with Article 22(4)(a), as the detention was subject to review by the Advisory Board[7].

The refusal to disclose certain particulars was within the rights conferred by Article 22(6), protecting national security by withholding sensitive information[8].

The appellant had been provided sufficient grounds and opportunity to represent, and the government’s action was bona fide and based on intelligence reports suggesting activities prejudicial to India’s security[9].

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

i)

• Article 22(4)(a): Prohibits detention beyond three months without Advisory Board’s confirmation.

• Article 22(5): Ensures right to be informed of grounds and to make a representation.

• Article 22(6): Protects from disclosing facts against public interest.

• Preventive Detention Act, 1950: Section 3 (Detention Order), Section 7 (Communication of Grounds), Section 8 (Advisory Board), Section 10 (Board’s Report), Section 11(1) (Continuation of Detention).

H) JUDGEMENT

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

i) The Supreme Court held (4:1 majority) that “such detention” in Article 22(4)(a) refers to preventive detention generally and not exclusively to detention beyond three months. Hence, the Advisory Board’s confirmation of “sufficient cause for detention” satisfied constitutional requirements[10].

The government alone was empowered to fix the period of detention under Section 11(1) once the Advisory Board affirmed that the detention was justified. The law did not require the Board to specify that the detention was warranted for a period beyond three months[11].

b. OBITER DICTA

i) Preventive detention decisions belong primarily to the executive, not the Advisory Board. The board serves as a check on arbitrary power, not as a substitute for executive discretion in determining the duration[12].

c. GUIDELINES 

• The Advisory Board’s mandate is to determine justifiability, not duration, of preventive detention.

• Grounds need not include precise details if disclosure would compromise public interest under Article 22(6).

• A detenu may be denied complete grounds without violating Article 22(5), provided minimum disclosure is made.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The decision in Puranlal Lakhanpal v. Union of India reaffirmed the government’s discretion in preventive detention while clarifying constitutional boundaries. It interpreted Article 22(4)(a) narrowly, allowing continuation of detention post-Advisory Board confirmation without mandating a specific report for extension. This precedent legitimized the government’s wide latitude under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, while emphasizing procedural safeguards via Advisory Boards. Justice Sarkar’s dissent, however, remains vital in legal discourse, highlighting the need for stricter scrutiny in detention matters to safeguard liberty.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

i) A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, (1950) SCR 88
ii) Makhan Singh Tarsikka v. State of Punjab, (1952) SCR 368
iii) Dattatreya Moreshwar Pangarkar v. State of Bombay, (1952) SCR 612
iv) Lawrence Joachim Joseph D’Souza v. State of Bombay, (1956) SCR 382
v) State of Bombay v. Atma Ram Sridhar Vaidya, (1951) SCR 167

b. Important Statutes Referred

i) Constitution of India – Articles 22(4), 22(5), 22(6), 246
ii) Preventive Detention Act, 1950 (as amended in 1951) – Sections 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11(1)