Case Summary
| Citation | A. K. Roy v. Union of India (1982) 1 SCC 271 |
| Keywords | |
| Facts | A.K. Roy, a Member of Parliament, had been detained by the District Magistrate of Dhanbad under the provisions of the National Security Act, 1980 on the grounds of engaging in activities that posed a threat to public order. His petition was filed under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution contending that ordinance is an executive power, and not a legislative power, and therefore is not law. Additionally, several petitions were lodged under the said Article challenging the validity of the National Security Ordinance, 2 of 1980, and a few of the provisions of the National Security Act, 1980. The Supreme Court of India allowed all the writ petitions filed. |
| Issues | Whether Section 1 clause (2) of the 44th Constitutional Amendment,1978 is ultra vires of Article 368 of the Indian Constitution? |
| Contentions | |
| Law Points | According to the court, Article 14 and other constitutional requirements are not violated by the National Security Ordinance 1980, which permits preventative detention. The Court further stated that the Constitution places the highest priority on national security and that an executive order from the President has the same legal force as an act passed by the legislature. The President’s ordinance issued pursuant to Article 123 of the Constitution, the court stated, may be examined for ambiguity, arbitrariness, rationality, and alignment with the public interest. |
| Judgement | The court went on to say that the ordinance should only be passed during the recesses of legislatures. The court stressed that although the president’s satisfaction is not subject to judicial review, the use of power under Article 123 is not only a political decision but may also be subject to legal analysis. |
| Ratio Decidendi & Case Authority |
Full Case Details
1 comment
[…] A. K. Roy v. Union of India (1982) 1 SCC 271 […]