TMI Blog1956 (11) TMI 35X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he orders recited that the Government had been satisfied with respect to each of the petitioners that with a view to preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the security of the State, it was necessary to make an order that he be detained. No grounds having been supplied to either of the petitioners nor any declaration having been made under the proviso to s. 8 (1) of the Act for a considerable time, each of the petitioners applied to the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir under s. 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for an order in the nature of a writ of habeas corpus. During the pendency of those applications on June 30, 1956, that is to say, more than two months after the date of the original order of detention, a declaration was made by the Government under the proviso to s. 8 (1) to the effect that it would be against the public interest to communicate to the detenues the grounds on which the detention orders had been made. On July 28, 1956, both the petitions were dismissed by the High Court. It appears that the case of each of the detenues had been reviewed by the Government under sub-s. (2) of s. 14 of the Act in consultation with a person nominated by the Gove ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsistency, cease to have effect on the expiration of five years from the commencement of the said Order, except as respects things done or omitted to be done before the expiration thereof. Therefore, the detention of the petitioners cannot be questioned for five years from the date of the President's order on the ground that the Act is inconsistent with any of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution. The legality of the petitioners' detention will, therefore, depend on and have to be considered on a true construction of the provisions of the Act. Turning now to the Act we come to s. 3, which gives to the Government and some of its officers specifically enumerated therein the power to make an order of detention against certain persons. The condition precedent to the making of such order is that the Government must be satisfied with respect, to any person that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to certain enumerated objects it is necessary to make an order of detention. The enumerated objects include 4 items, namely, (i) security of the State or (ii) the maintenance of public order or(iii)the maintenance of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e time. Likewise to communicate the grounds 'as soon as may be' may well be said to mean to do so (1) (1942) 2 W.W.R. 603, 606 within a reasonable time with an understanding to do it within the shortest possible time. What, however, is to be regarded as a reasonable time or the shortest possible time? The words 'as soon as may be' came for consideration before this Court in Ujagar Singh v. The State of the Punjab ([1952] S.C.R. 756.). At pages 761-762 this Court observed that the expression meant with a reasonable despatch and then went on to say that what was reasonable must depend on the facts of each case and no arbitrary time limit could be set down. In Keshav Nilakanth Joglekar v. The Commissioner of Police Greater Bombay and 2 Other8 (Supreme Court Petition No. 102 of 1956, decided on September 17,1956.) the word forthwith occurring in s. 3(3) of the Indian Preventive Detention Act (IV of 1950) came up for consideration. After observing that the word forthwith occurring in s. 3(3) of that Act did not mean the same thing as as soon as may be used in s. 7 of the same Act and that the former was more peremptory than the latter, this Court observe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the order place before an Advisory Board constituted by it under section 9 the grounds on which the order has been made and the representation, if any, made by the detenue and in a case where the order has been made by an officer, also the report made by the officer under sub-s. (3) of s. 3. He next points out that this requirement of s. 10 is $'subject to the provisions of s. 14. Then he takes us to s. 14 of the Act. That section provides that not- withstanding anything contained in this Act any person detained under a detention order made in any of the classes of cases or in any of the circumstances therein mentioned may be detained or continued in detention without obtaining the opinion of the Advisory Board for a period longer than 3 months but not exceeding five years from the date of detention. The two classes of persons who may be detained without obtaining the opinion of the Advisory Board comprise persons who have been detained with a view to preventing them from acting in any manner prejudicial to (1) the security of the State and (ii) the maizitenance of public order. The cases of persons falling under these,, two classes are by sub-s. (2) of s. 14 to be reviewed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion is made under s. 3(1)(a), the authority making the order is by s. 8(1) placed under the obligation to communicate the grounds of the detention 'as soon as may be.' If no declaration is made under the proviso, s. 8(1) will operate in the case of every detenue to whichever of the four categories he may belong. The proviso enables the Government to prevent the application of sub-s. (1) to certain class of detenues only. It follows that the detenues who do not fall within that clause must have the grounds communicated to them and there is no power given to the Government to exclude the operation of sub-s. (1) from those cases. It will be noted that under the proviso the Government may exclude the application of sub-s. (1), only in the case of a person who has been detained with a view to prevent him from indulging in activities prejudicial to the security of the State and only if the Government declares that it will be against the public interest to communicate the grounds to him. Even if a person has been detained on account of his activities being prejudicial to the security of the State the Government cannot exclude the operation of sub-s. (1) from his case unless the Go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be' and there is nothing to prevent the Government from sending their cases together with the grounds and their representations, if any, to the Advisor Board under s. 10 of the Act.' Therefore, with respect to such persons the grounds' must be supplied 'as soon as may be' under sub-s. (1)' and cannot be postponed for 6 months referred to in section 14. Finally the review contemplated by sub-s. (2) of s. 14 is to be made within a period of 6 months from the date of detention. There is no reason to hold that in every case such a review will be held on the last day of that period of 6 months. With regard to a person falling within the category of persons whose activities are prejudicial to the security of the State but with respect to whom the Government does not think fit to make any declaration under the proviso, he would be entitled to have the grounds communicated to him 'as soon as may be' and he may immediately make such cogent and convincing representation to the Government as may induce the Government to release him forthwith without waiting for the last day of the 6 months. For reasons stated above we see no difficulty in construing th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
