1951 (6) TMI 23 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the detention order under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, and its continuation under the Preventive Detention (Amendment) Act, 1951.
2. Jurisdiction of the Assistant Inspector General of Prisons to transfer the detenue.
3. Requirement to specify the period of detention in the detention order.
4. Right to make a representation to the Advisory Board and the necessity of communicating the confirmation of the detention order.
5. Validity of the grounds for detention and the necessity to disclose detailed facts.
6. Authority to specify the place of detention.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Detention Order:
The applicant was detained under an order dated 1-4-1948, later continued under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950. The Preventive Detention (Amendment) Act, 1951, allowed the continuation of valid detention orders in force at its commencement. The applicant contended that the original detention order was invalid. The court held that the validity of the detention order must be determined at the time of the amending Act's commencement. The court found that the original detention order was valid and continued under the amending Act.

2. Jurisdiction of the Assistant Inspector General of Prisons:
The applicant was transferred from the House of Correction at Byculla to the Thana Jail by the Assistant Inspector General of Prisons. The court noted that while the Inspector General had the power to transfer prisoners, the applicant was a detenue, not a prisoner. The court held that the transfer order was invalid as it was not made by an authority empowered under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950. However, a subsequent valid order by the State Government cured the defect before the applicant's release.

3. Requirement to Specify the Period of Detention:
The applicant argued that the detention order was invalid as it did not specify the detention period. The court held that under Section 3 of the Preventive Detention Act, it was not necessary to state the period of detention in the original order. The court referenced the case of Pangarkar v. State, where it was determined that the period need not be specified in the original order. The court agreed with this view, stating that the detaining authority could monitor the detention period and issue further orders as necessary.

4. Right to Make a Representation and Communication of Confirmation:
The applicant contended that he was not given an opportunity to make a representation to the Advisory Board under the amended Act. The court held that the Preventive Detention Act did not require the government to provide an opportunity to make a representation to the Advisory Board. The representation made to the appropriate government was sufficient. The applicant also argued that the confirmation of the detention order was not communicated to him. The court found no provision in Section 11 requiring the government to communicate the confirmation to the detenue.

5. Validity of the Grounds for Detention:
The applicant argued that the grounds for detention were vague as they did not specify dates, persons, or rates involved in the alleged illegal activities. The court held that the grounds were sufficient as the detaining authority was not required to disclose facts not in the public interest. The court found no evidence of mala fide in the detaining authority's decision to withhold certain facts.

6. Authority to Specify the Place of Detention:
The applicant was detained in the Thana Jail under an order by the Commissioner of Police. The court held that the Commissioner of Police executed the general order of the appropriate government, which specified the places where detenues could be detained. The court found that the order was valid as it complied with the general order issued by the government.

Conclusion:
The court discharged the rule, holding that the detention order was valid and continued under the amending Act. The transfer order by the Assistant Inspector General of Prisons was initially invalid but was cured by a subsequent valid order. The detention order did not need to specify the period of detention. The applicant's right to make a representation was satisfied, and the grounds for detention were valid. The place of detention was properly specified by the appropriate authority.