Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

FENDAN NAHA versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Decided
3 May 1974
Judges listed
A.N. RAY, KUTTYIL KURIEN MATHEW, A. ALAGIRISWAMI, P.K. GOSWAMI, R.S. SARKARIA (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[1975] 1 S.C.R. 483 · 1974 INSC 120

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

RAY, C.J. The petitioner in a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution challenges the order of detention dated 15 March, 1973.

p. 483, margin D

The order is : 'in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section ( 1) read with sub-section (2) of s·oction 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act "hereinafter referred to as the Act" directing the petitioner to be detained'".

p. 483, margin E

The petitioner challenges the order on the ground that it is the duty of the authority to fix the period of detention after carefully examining the circumstances requiring detention. The petitioner submits that the authorities have bodily lifted the section fixing the maximum period without applying their mind as to the period of detention.

p. 483, margin F

This Court in Fagu Shaw etc. v. The State of West Bn1ua! A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 613 held that the maximum period men'ioned in section 13 of the Act as amended by section 6 ( d) of the Defence of India Act, 1971 is a constitutionally valid provision.

p. 483, margin G

That section states that the maximum period for which any person can be detained in pursuance of any detention which has been confirmed under section 12 shall be 12 months from the date of detention or until the expiry of the Defence of India Act whichever is later.

p. 483, margin G

This Court construed section 13 of the Act to be valid with reference to Article 22(7)(b) of the Constitution. The maximum period under Article 22(7)(b) can be fixed with reference to the duration of an ~mergency. The expiry of the Defence of India Act is dependent upon the revocation of emergency. The duration of maximum period of detention with reference to an event like tlie cessation of the period of emergency is not indefinite.

p. 484, margin A

The order of detention in the present case does not suffer from any constitutional infirmity. The authorities have applied their mind. The authorities have detained for the maximum period mentioned in the statute.

p. 484, margin B

The petition is dismissed. K.B.N. Petition dismissed.

p. 484, margin C