A. K. Gopalan v. State of Madras - Revision history

UpdateBot: robot: Update article (please report if you notice any mistake or error in this edit)

2022-02-22T05:34:59Z

robot: Update article (please report if you notice any mistake or error in this edit)

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:04, 22 February 2022
Line 31:		Line 31:

	== Background ==		== Background ==
	Communist leader [[A. K. Gopalan\|A.K ~~GOPALAN~~]] had been under detention since December 1947, since his sentencing under ordinary criminal law. Those convictions were subsequently set aside. On 1 March 1950, while he was in Madras jail, Gopalan was served with an order made under Section 3(1) of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950. The provision allows the Central Government or the State Government to detain anyone in order to prevent them from acting in any manner prejudicial to the national ~~defence~~, foreign relations, national security, state security, public order, or the maintenance of essential supplies and services.		Communist leader [[A. K. Gopalan\|A.K Gopalan]] had been under detention since December 1947, since his sentencing under ordinary criminal law. Those convictions were subsequently set aside. On 1 March 1950, while he was in Madras jail, Gopalan was served with an order made under Section 3(1) of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950. The provision allows the Central Government or the State Government to detain anyone in order to prevent them from acting in any manner prejudicial to the national defense, foreign relations, national security, state security, public order, or the maintenance of essential supplies and services.

	Gopalan filed a petition under Article 32 of the [[Constitution of India]] for a [[writ]] of [[habeas corpus]] against his detention. Gopalan was prohibited from disclosing the grounds under which he was detained because of Section 14 of the Act, which prohibited such a disclosure even in a court of law. He claimed that the order detaining him violated Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution, and that the provisions of the Act violated Article 22 of the Constitution.		Gopalan filed a petition under Article 32 of the [[Constitution of India]] for a [[writ]] of [[habeas corpus]] against his detention. Gopalan was prohibited from disclosing the grounds under which he was detained because of Section 14 of the Act, which prohibited such disclosure even in a court of law. He claimed that the order detaining him violated Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution and that the provisions of the Act violated Article 22 of the Constitution.

	The matter was placed before a six-judge bench. [[M. K. Nambiar]], with S.K. Aiyar and V.G. Rao represented Gopalan. K. Rajah Aiyar, the Advocate-General for the State of Madras, with C.R. Pattabi Raman and R. Ganapathi represented the State of Madras. M.C. Setalvad represented the Union of India, which was an intervener in the case.		The matter was placed before a six-judge bench. [[M. K. Nambiar]], with S.K. Aiyar and V.G. Rao represented Gopalan. K. Rajah Aiyar, the Advocate-General for the State of Madras, with C.R. Pattabi Raman and R. Ganapathi represented the State of Madras. M.C. Setalvad represented the Union of India, which was an intervener in the case.

>Ingratis: de-PROD - no WP:BEFORE

2021-07-04T03:21:24Z

de-PROD - no WP:BEFORE

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:51, 4 July 2021
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Infobox court case
	{{~~SCICase~~		\|name = A. K. Gopalan v. State of Madras
	\|~~Litigants~~ = A. K. Gopalan v. State of Madras		\|court = [[Supreme Court of India]]
	\|~~DecideDate~~ =		\|image =
	\|~~DecideYear~~ =		\|imagesize =
	\|~~FullName~~ = A. K. Gopalan v. State of Madras		\|imagelink =
	\|~~Citation~~ =		\|imagealt =
	\|~~Holding~~ =		\|caption =
	\|~~CaseOpinion~~ =		\|full name = A. K. Gopalan v. State of Madras
	\|~~LawsApplied~~ =		\|date decided = 19 May 1950
			\|citations = AIR 1950 SC 27; 1950 SCR 88; (1950) 51 Cri LJ 1383
			\|ECLI =
			\|transcripts =
			\|judges = [[H.J. Kania\|Harilal Kania]] (Chief Justice), [[S. Fazl Ali]], [[M. Patanjali Sastri]], [[Mehr Chand Mahajan]], B.K. Mukherjea, [[Sudhi Ranjan Das]]
			\|number of judges = 6
			\|decision by = Harilal Kania (Chief Justice)
			\|concurring =
			\|dissenting = S. Fazl Ali
			\|concur/dissent =
			\|prior actions =
			\|appealed from =
			\|appealed to =
			\|subsequent actions = Overruled in ''[[Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India]]'' (1978)
			\|related actions =
			\|opinions =
			\|keywords = <!-- {{hlist \| }} -->
			\|italic title =
	}}		}}
	{{Italic title\|force=true}}		{{Italic title\|force=true}}
			'''''A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras''''', AIR 1950 SC 27, was a landmark decision of the [[Supreme Court of India]] in which the Court ruled that Article 21 of the Constitution did not require Indian courts to apply a [[due process\|due process of law]] standard.<ref name="indianexpress1950">{{cite news \|title=A.K. Gopalan's Petition Dismissed \|access-date=15 May 2021 \|work=The Indian Express \|issue=Madras \|publisher=Indian Express Limited (IEL) \|date=20 May 1950 \|page=1 \|language=English \|url=https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=p7w-AAAAIBAJ&sjid=O0wMAAAAIBAJ&pg=1782%2C5547992}}</ref> In doing so, the Court upheld the validity of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, with the exception of Section 14, which provided that the grounds of detention communicated to the detainee or any representation made by him against these grounds cannot be disclosed in a court of law.<ref name="indianexpress1950" />

			== Background ==
			Communist leader [[A. K. Gopalan\|A.K GOPALAN]] had been under detention since December 1947, since his sentencing under ordinary criminal law. Those convictions were subsequently set aside. On 1 March 1950, while he was in Madras jail, Gopalan was served with an order made under Section 3(1) of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950. The provision allows the Central Government or the State Government to detain anyone in order to prevent them from acting in any manner prejudicial to the national defence, foreign relations, national security, state security, public order, or the maintenance of essential supplies and services.

			Gopalan filed a petition under Article 32 of the [[Constitution of India]] for a [[writ]] of [[habeas corpus]] against his detention. Gopalan was prohibited from disclosing the grounds under which he was detained because of Section 14 of the Act, which prohibited such a disclosure even in a court of law. He claimed that the order detaining him violated Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution, and that the provisions of the Act violated Article 22 of the Constitution.

			The matter was placed before a six-judge bench. [[M. K. Nambiar]], with S.K. Aiyar and V.G. Rao represented Gopalan. K. Rajah Aiyar, the Advocate-General for the State of Madras, with C.R. Pattabi Raman and R. Ganapathi represented the State of Madras. M.C. Setalvad represented the Union of India, which was an intervener in the case.

			== Judgment ==

			All six judges wrote separate opinions. The majority held that Section 14 of the Act, which restricted disclosure of the grounds of detention, was unconstitutional

	[[A. K. Gopalan]] case is the leading case on right of [[Liberty\|personal liberty]] and in 1950 the meaning of [[Liberty\|personal liberty]] was limited and in present context it has expanded horizons in latest decided cases.<ref>{{Cite web\|date=1950-05-19\|title=A. K. Gopalan v State of Madras (SC) 1950\|url=https://indiancaselaw.com/a~~-k-gopalan-v-state-of-madras-sc-1950/\|access-date=2021-01-25\|website=IndianCaselaw~~.~~com\|language=en}}</ref>~~		Justice Fazl Ali wrote a dissenting judgment.

	==References==		==References==

>Rogermx: had enough wikilinks

2021-02-12T20:28:07Z

had enough wikilinks

New page

{{SCICase
|Litigants = A. K. Gopalan v. State of Madras
|DecideDate =
|DecideYear =
|FullName = A. K. Gopalan v. State of Madras
|Citation =
|Holding =
|CaseOpinion =
|LawsApplied =
}}
{{Italic title|force=true}}

[[A. K. Gopalan]] case is the leading case on right of [[Liberty|personal liberty]] and in 1950 the meaning of [[Liberty|personal liberty]] was limited and in present context it has expanded horizons in latest decided cases.<ref>{{Cite web|date=1950-05-19|title=A. K. Gopalan v State of Madras (SC) 1950|url=https://indiancaselaw.com/a-k-gopalan-v-state-of-madras-sc-1950/|access-date=2021-01-25|website=IndianCaselaw.com|language=en}}</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Supreme Court of India cases]]

{{India-law-stub}}