Advocate Simranjeet Singh Sidhu An Unbiased View Of NRI Legal Services Simranjeet Law Associates 815 Sector 16 D Chandigarh 160015
As regards an impartial tribunal, article 22 and (7) read together give the Parliament ample discretion. This is the scheme adopted by the Constitution in dealing with the rights to freedom described in the chapter on fundamental rights and in my opinion, therefore, the proper test for determining the validity of an enactment under which a person is sought to be deprived of his life and personal liberty has to be found not in article 19, but in the three following articles of the Constitution.
Dealing with the four fundamental principles of natural justice in Best Lawyer Chandigarh procedure claimed by the petitioner, it is thus clear that in respect of preventive detention no question of an objective standard of human conduct can be laid down. The contention of the respondent was that the Provincial Government has to act judicially in determining the public purpose and its action is therefore subject to a writ of certiorari if it acts beyond its legal authority. It was open to a company not to adopt article 42 and thus fetter the discretion of the directors even Chandigarh High Court Lawyer in the case of the issue of new capital.
Under article 22 (4) it appears implied that a provision for such tribunal is not necessary if the detention is for less than three months. When in specified circumstances and classes of cases the preventive detention exceeds three months, the absence of an advisory board is expressly per- mitted 129 by article 22 (7). As regards an opportunity to be heard, there is no absolute natural right recognised in respect of oral representation.
Such being the case, the opinion of the Provincial Government on both these matters is final and cannot be questioned in any court of law. It is conceded that no notice before detention can be claimed by the very nature of such detention. Under the law as it existed prior to 1936, if a company incorpo- rated in its Articles of Association article 42 mentioned in the schedule to the Indian Companies Act, then in the case of issue of new shares the directors' discretion was cur- tailed inasmuch as they were bound to offer these shares in the first instance in proportion as nearly as the circum- stances admitted to the amount of the existing shares to the existing shareholders but in all other cases their discre- tion remained unfettered.
The ques- tion in these cases was as to the meaning of the phrase "judicial power of the Commonwealth. Section 72 requires that every Justice of the High Court Chandigarh Lawyer Court and every Justice of any other Court created by the Parliament of the Common- wealth shall subject to the power of removal contained in the section be appointed for life. It has been held to depend on the nature of the tribunal. Every Advocates Chandigarh High Court referred to in section 71 has to be constituted in the manner provided by section 72.
It is interesting to observe that in articles 138, 139 and 140 the Constitution has conferred powers on Parliament for further enlargement of the powers of this Court. In such a situation it is difficult to hold that the reso- lution passed by the directors has contravened the provi- sions of section 105-C and has caused any detriment or injury either to the company or to the shareholders. Article 20 of course has no application so far as the law relating to preventive detention is concerned.
The right to make a representation is affirmed by the Constitution in article 22 (5) and finds a place in the impugned Act. Clause (2) of article 136 excludes the jurisdiction of this Court in respect of military Courts. It seems to me therefore that the petitioner's contentions even on these points fail. The contention on behalf of the appellant is that section 3 empowers the Government to form an opinion on two matters: (1) whether there is a public purpose; and (2) whether it is necessary or expedient in the interests of that purpose to requisition certain premises.
642 In this appeal, two principal contentions, which in the view I am inclined to take are the only contentions which need be referred to, were raised in the course of the argu- ments, one on behalf of the respondent and the other on behalf of the appellant. The argument that after detention intimation of the grounds should be given has been recognised in article 22 (5) and incorporated in the impugned Act. Even if the resolution passed by the directors is held to be in technical breach of the section, as it has caused no injury to anybody, the resolution cannot be held to be void.
Three Australian cases were cited which concern the construction of sections 51, 71 and 72 of the Australian Constitution (63 and 64 Vict. Section 71 confers the whole judicial power of the Commonwealth upon the Courts therein mentioned and no other tribunal or body can exercise that power. 29, whereby 7 aruvals, 10 velsticks, a toy gun and 3 knives were recovered and it was clearly spoken to by the prosecution witnesses that A1 stabbed deceased (in short ˜D™) D1 with velkambu on his stomach; A2, A3, A4, A6, A10, A14, A18 attacked D4, D5, D6 with velstick and aruval; A7 attempted to attack PW3 with velstick; A8 stabbed D7 with velstick on his left arm; A9 attacked D1 repeatedly with aruval; A11 stabbed D2 on his stomach with velstick; Yogesh Kanna, learned counsel for respondent submitted that the volunteered statement of A5 was reduced into writing, being Exh.
The right to an orderly course of procedure to the extent it is guaranteed by article 22 (4) read with article 22 (7) (c), and by article 22 (7) (a) and (b), has also been thus provided in the Act.
