TMI Blog1950 (5) TMI 29X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mental rights of the Indian citizens conferred by Part III of the Constitution and is accordingly void under Article 13(2) of the Constitution; and (2) that the Order of detention has been made 'mala fide' and is an abuse of power and as such void, illegal and inoperative. The first question mentioned above is now concluded by the decision of this Court which, by a majority, upheld the validity of the impugned Act except as to certain provisions which were held to be severable. The provisions which were held to be bad have no bearing on the present case. 2. In order to determine the second question it will be necessary to state a few facts. The petitioner is a member of the Hindu Mahasabha. He is a representative of the Bengal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peeches led to a communal riot in Delhi on 19-3-1950. On 23-3-1950 the petitioner came to Delhi for, he says, attending the Board meeting of a company of which he is a director. On 27-3-1950 the petitioner held a Press conference at Delhi where, it is alleged, he gave a highly exaggerated and communal version of the happenings in Bengal and East Bengal. No report of the Press conference, however, was published by the authorities. On 28-3-1950 the petitioner returned to Calcutta where he ordinarily resides. A meeting of the Working Committee and a meeting of the All India Committee of the Hindu Mahasabha were called by its President for the 1st and the 2nd April 1950, the notices having been issued on 15-3-1950. The object of these meetin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts having created any mischief even if they were highly communal, which is denied. On the 1st April, 1950 he came to attend the two meetings but the meetings were banned and no mischief can possibly be said to have been done. All the important leaders of the Mahasabha had been externed from Delhi and the meetings were banned by the Government in order to prevent persons opposing the Congress Governments from criticising the policy of the party in power. The Prime Minister of Pakistan had come or was due to come to Delhi at or about that time and all these steps were taken to prevent the ventilation of the genuine feelings of the people. In particular, the petitioner was co-operating with Bengal Government in the relief and rehabilitation w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was tense. In fact there was a communal riot on the 19th March 1950. The petitioner held a Press conference where he is alleged to have given a highly exaggerated and communal version of the happenings in Bengal. The District Magistrate, in these circumstances, felt satisfied, he says, that it was necessary to take action against the petitioner. I am not prepared to say that in view of the prevailing situation his satisfaction was patently simulated. The petitioner's active participation in relief work to which reference has been made is not necessarily inconsistent with and does not exclude or rule out the possibility of his inflaming the communal passions of the Hindu refugees. In the premises, I am unable to accede to this petition, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etention may be declared invalid if it could be proved to have been made by the authority concerned in mala fide exercise of their power. The burden of proving the absence of good faith is upon the petitioner and in cases of this description, it is certainly a heavy burden to discharge. 9. From the facts set out in the affidavit of the petitioner which have not been controverted by the respondents, it appears that the petitioner is a member of the Working Committee as well as of the All India Committee of the Hindu Mahasabha. He ordinarily resides in Calcutta, West Bengal, and came to Delhi on 23-3-1-950 to attend a meeting of the Board of Directors of the Bharat Publications Limited. On 27-3-1950 he held a Press Conference at Delhi and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce held on 27-3-1950, although no report of this Conference was allowed to be published under the Orders of the District Magistrate. I may also take it that there was a communal disturbance at Delhi of some magnitude on 19-3-1950 and that in these circumstances the presence of the petitioner in this city was not considered desirable; but even then a doubt legitimately arises in one's mind as to the necessity or propriety of making use of the provisions of the Preventive Detention Act against the petitioner. As said above, he is not an inhabitant of this place and does not normally carry on his activities in Delhi. He resides habitually in West Bengal and came to Delhi only to attend certain meetings. If as the District Magistrate tho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
