29:
301:
205:
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. Justice Fazl Ali wrote a dissenting judgment. The case is also considered landmark in the sense that the question of Preamble was raised
189:
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
173:
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
160:
standard. 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.
174:
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.
197:, 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.
342:
361:
225:
137:
262:
335:
371:
366:
206:
in the court. The
Supreme Court, then held that, preamble cannot be used for interpretation of the constitution
328:
153:
39:
28:
178:
156:
in which the Court ruled that
Article 21 of the Constitution did not require Indian courts to apply a
194:
88:
92:
258:
312:
96:
355:
186:
170:
308:
252:
157:
84:
80:
278:
232:. No. Madras. Indian Express Limited (IEL). 20 May 1950. p. 1
182:
190:
provisions of the Act violated
Article 22 of the Constitution.
254:
Working a
Democratic Constitution: The Indian Experience
316:
220:
218:
123:
115:
107:
102:
76:
71:
63:
55:
45:
35:
21:
67:AIR 1950 SC 27; 1950 SCR 88; (1950) 51 Cri LJ 1383
177:Gopalan filed a petition under Article 32 of the
152:, AIR 1950 SC 27, was a landmark decision of the
193:The matter was placed before a six-judge bench.
336:
8:
257:. Oxford University Press. pp. 58–59.
343:
329:
27:
18:
214:
279:"A.K. Gopalan vs The State Of Madras"
7:
297:
295:
226:"A.K. Gopalan's Petition Dismissed"
315:. You can help Knowledge (XXG) by
14:
50:A. K. Gopalan v. State of Madras
299:
22:A. K. Gopalan v. State of Madras
149:A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras
138:Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India
1:
111:Harilal Kania (Chief Justice)
362:Supreme Court of India cases
388:
294:
251:Austin, Granville (1999).
135:
128:
26:
16:Indian supreme court case
307:This article about the
154:Supreme Court of India
40:Supreme Court of India
179:Constitution of India
89:M. Patanjali Sastri
230:The Indian Express
158:due process of law
95:, B.K. Mukherjea,
93:Mehr Chand Mahajan
324:
323:
169:Communist leader
145:
144:
83:(Chief Justice),
379:
372:Indian law stubs
367:1950 in case law
345:
338:
331:
303:
302:
296:
287:
286:
283:indiankanoon.org
275:
269:
268:
248:
242:
241:
239:
237:
222:
97:Sudhi Ranjan Das
72:Court membership
31:
19:
387:
386:
382:
381:
380:
378:
377:
376:
352:
351:
350:
349:
300:
292:
290:
277:
276:
272:
265:
250:
249:
245:
235:
233:
224:
223:
216:
212:
203:
167:
131:
17:
12:
11:
5:
385:
383:
375:
374:
369:
364:
354:
353:
348:
347:
340:
333:
325:
322:
321:
304:
289:
288:
285:. 19 May 1950.
270:
263:
243:
213:
211:
208:
202:
199:
166:
163:
143:
142:
133:
132:
129:
126:
125:
121:
120:
117:
113:
112:
109:
105:
104:
100:
99:
78:
77:Judges sitting
74:
73:
69:
68:
65:
61:
60:
57:
53:
52:
47:
46:Full case name
43:
42:
37:
33:
32:
24:
23:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
384:
373:
370:
368:
365:
363:
360:
359:
357:
346:
341:
339:
334:
332:
327:
326:
320:
318:
314:
310:
305:
298:
293:
284:
280:
274:
271:
266:
260:
256:
255:
247:
244:
231:
227:
221:
219:
215:
209:
207:
200:
198:
196:
195:M. K. Nambiar
191:
188:
187:habeas corpus
184:
180:
175:
172:
164:
162:
159:
155:
151:
150:
140:
139:
134:
127:
122:
118:
114:
110:
106:
103:Case opinions
101:
98:
94:
90:
86:
82:
81:Harilal Kania
79:
75:
70:
66:
62:
58:
54:
51:
48:
44:
41:
38:
34:
30:
25:
20:
317:expanding it
309:law of India
306:
291:
282:
273:
253:
246:
234:. Retrieved
229:
204:
192:
176:
168:
148:
147:
146:
136:
130:Overruled by
124:Laws applied
49:
171:A.K Gopalan
119:S. Fazl Ali
108:Decision by
85:S. Fazl Ali
59:19 May 1950
356:Categories
264:0195648889
210:References
165:Background
201:Judgment
64:Citation
116:Dissent
56:Decided
261:
236:15 May
181:for a
141:(1978)
311:is a
36:Court
313:stub
259:ISBN
238:2021
183:writ
185:of
358::
281:.
228:.
217:^
91:,
87:,
344:e
337:t
330:v
319:.
267:.
240:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
