ISSUE:
Whether an order made under Article 359(1) can be considered a 'law' within the meaning of Article 13(2) and can it be tested against the fundamental rights it suspends, particularly Articles 14, 21, and 22?
Must grounds for detention required under Article 22(5) still be provided after the suspension of Article 22?
Did the detention order comply with the procedural requirements set forth in Article 166 of the Constitution?
Whether the arrest of the petitioner under the r. 30(1)(b) of the Defence of India Rules, 1962 was legal and valid?
RULE:
Principle of Habeas Corpus: The court dealt with petitions seeking a writ of habeas corpus. This principle ensures the right to challenge unlawful detention. The petitioners argued that their detention was illegal as they were not given an opportunity to represent their case before the reviewing authority.
Doctrine of Non-Arbitrariness: The suspension of fundamental rights is conditioned on the necessity for national security and cannot be used arbitrarily or without justification.
Harmonious Construction of Constitutional Provisions: The court applies the principle of harmonious construction to interpret Articles 359 and 13(2), concluding that an order under Article 359 suspending fundamental rights cannot be challenged under the same rights.
Principle of Legislative Supremacy: The court recognised that the President's order under Article 359 is an exercise of legislative power during an emergency. While such powers are broad, they are not unlimited.