Okay, I will provide a summary based on the provided information. Note that the provided information is extremely limited. A real case summary would require significantly more detail about the specific facts, arguments, and reasoning. Given the title "Article 34 in Constitution of India" and the date "26 January 1950," which is the date the Constitution came into effect, it's highly unlikely there's a single "case" in the traditional sense. Article 34 is a constitutional provision itself. I will interpret this as a request to explain the meaning and potential application of Article 34.

Short Summary

Article 34 of the Indian Constitution addresses restrictions on rights conferred by Part III (Fundamental Rights) while martial law is in force in any area within the territory of India. It essentially allows Parliament to indemnify government servants or others for actions taken during martial law to maintain or restore order. There is no specific "holding" as it is a constitutional provision.

Facts

This isn't a case with specific facts. Article 34 is a provision within the Constitution of India itself. The relevant fact is the existence of this provision within the framework of fundamental rights.

Issues

The core issue addressed by Article 34 is the potential conflict between fundamental rights and the need for maintaining order during periods of martial law. It raises questions about the extent to which fundamental rights can be curtailed in exceptional circumstances and the mechanisms for accountability for actions taken during such periods.

Petitioner's Arguments

Since this is not a typical case, there are no petitioner's arguments in the traditional sense. Hypothetically, a petitioner challenging an action taken under the protection of a law enacted under Article 34 might argue that the law is unconstitutional because it excessively infringes on fundamental rights or that the actions taken were beyond the scope of what was necessary to restore order.

Respondent's Arguments

Similarly, a respondent (likely the government) would argue that the law enacted under Article 34 is a valid exercise of Parliament's power to maintain order and that the actions taken were necessary and proportionate to the situation prevailing during martial law. They would emphasize the need to balance individual rights with the security and stability of the state.

Court's Reasoning

As there is no specific court case provided, there is no court reasoning to summarize. However, if a court were to consider a challenge to a law enacted under Article 34, it would likely apply a test of proportionality, balancing the infringement on fundamental rights against the necessity of the measures taken to restore order. The court would also consider whether the law provides sufficient safeguards against abuse of power. The court would need to interpret the scope of "martial law" and the extent to which Parliament can indemnify actions taken during that period.

Conclusion

Article 34 is a constitutional provision that empowers Parliament to enact laws indemnifying actions taken during martial law, even if those actions infringe on fundamental rights. It does not represent a specific ruling, but rather a constitutional framework for dealing with exceptional circumstances.