Supreme Court Upholds Detention of Members of Parliament under Defence of India Rule 30(1)(b), Rejecting Challenge Based on Parliamentary Privileges and Mala Fides. Detention Orders Passed Under Defence of India Rules, 1962 Held Valid as Members of Parliament Enjoy No Special Status Against Preventive Detention, and Presidential Order Under Article 359(1) Did Not Bar Challenge on Grounds Unrelated to Articles 14, 21, 22.

Writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging detention orders passed under the Defence of India Rules, 1962.

Petitioners sought quashing of the detention orders and release from detention.

Petitioners, as Members of Parliament, were detained under Rule 30(1)(b) and (4) of the Defence of India Rules, 1962 by orders dated 29 December 1964; they challenged the validity of the rule and the orders on grounds of invalidity, mala fides, and lack of proper satisfaction.

Whether the writ petitions were maintainable in view of the Presidential Order under Article 359(1) suspending the right to move court for enforcement of rights under Articles 14, 21 and 22. Whether Rule 30(1)(b) of the Defence of India Rules, 1962 was invalid because it allowed detention of Members of Parliament, thereby preventing them from exercising their constitutional rights as legislators while the legislature was in session. Whether the detention orders were passed mala fide or without proper satisfaction of the detaining authority.

Petitioners argued that Rule 30(1)(b) was invalid because a legislator cannot be detained so as to prevent him from exercising his constitutional rights as such legislator while the legislative chamber to which he belongs is in session. Petitioners alleged that the impugned orders were passed mala fide for the purpose of stifling their political activities which were inconvenient to the State Government, and that the Chief Minister did not independently satisfy himself of the necessity of detention but merely followed the Union Home Minister's opinion. Respondents raised a preliminary objection that the writ petitions were incompetent due to the Presidential Order under Article 359(1) suspending the right to move court for enforcement of Articles 14, 21 and 22. Respondents contended that Rule 30(1)(b) was valid and that the detention orders were based on proper satisfaction of the detaining authority and were not mala fide.

A Presidential Order under Article 359(1) suspending enforcement of Articles 14, 21 and 22 applies only when detention is under a valid Defence of India Act/rule/order; it does not preclude a citizen from challenging the validity of the Act, rule or order on any other ground. Members of Parliament do not enjoy any special status higher than ordinary citizens against valid preventive detention; the privileges under Articles 79, 85, 86, 100(1) and 105 do not create constitutional rights that invalidate detention. A valid detention order necessarily prevents attendance in the legislature, so freedom of speech under Article 105 is not violated. Mala fides are not established when the detention forms part of a larger policy decision and the detaining authority affirms satisfaction after examining materials.

"The last clause of the Presidential Order postulates that the Defence of India Act or any rule or order made thereunder is valid." "So far as a valid order of detention is concerned, a member of Parliament can claim no special status higher than that an ordinary citizen and is as much liable to be arrested and detained under it as any other citizen." "There was no substance in the grievance of the petitioners that the impugned orders of detention were made either mala fide or without the proper satisfaction of the detaining authority."

On 26 October 1962, the President issued a Proclamation of Emergency under Article 352(1). On 1 and 3 November 1962, the President issued Orders under Article 359(1) suspending the right to move court for enforcement of rights under Articles 14, 21 and 22 for persons deprived of such rights under the Defence of India Ordinance, 1962 or any rule or order made thereunder. The Ordinance later became the Defence of India Act, 1962. On 29 December 1964, the Government of Madras passed detention orders under Rule 30(1)(b) and (4) of the Defence of India Rules, 1962 against K. Anandan Nambiar and R. Umanath, both Members of Parliament. They were detained since 30 December 1964 in the Central Jail, Cuddalore, though the orders mentioned the Central Jail, Tiruchirapalli. In 1965, they filed Writ Petitions Nos. 47 and 61 of 1965 under Article 32 challenging the detention orders. The respondents raised a preliminary objection on maintainability citing the Presidential Order. The Supreme Court heard the preliminary objection and the merits together. The Court rejected the preliminary objection, upheld the validity of Rule 30(1)(b), and found no mala fides, ultimately dismissing the writ petitions on 27 October 1965.

• Defence of India Act, 1962: Rule 30(1)(b), Rule 30(4)
• Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 14, 19, 21, 22, 32, 79, 85, 86, 100(1), 105, 352, 359(1)