TMI Blog1956 (4) TMI 73X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d these views in his journalistic articles . He was arrested on the 9th June, 1955, and is in detention since then under the impugned order, which runs as follows : No. P.D.A. 1555A. Political and Services Department, Secretariat, Bombay, 8th June, 1955. ORDER Whereas the Government of Bombay is satisfied with respect to the person known as Shri Lawrence Joachim Joseph DeSouza of Bombay, that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the relations of India with the Portuguese Government and to the Security of India, it is necessary to make the following Order :- Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-clause (1) of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 (Act IV of 1950) the Government of Bombay is pleased to direct that Shri Lawrence Joachim Joseph DeSouza of Bombay, be detained. By order and in the name of the Governor of Bombay. Under Secretary to the Government of Bombay. Political and Services Department . 2. In pursuance of section 7 of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 (Act IV of 1950) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) the grounds of detenti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d November, 1954, the return forthwith of all the papers and articles seized. Notwithstanding that order, the materials so illegally seized were returned only on or about the 21st January, 1955. (2) When one Joaquim Carlos, a Portuguese soldier attached to Goan forces, was arrested on a charge of entering Indian territory without the requisite authority, the appellant rendered professional assistance to him and obtained an order of release on bail from the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Bombay, which was foiled by the police by removing him away to Sawantwadi before the requisite sureties could be obtained at Bombay. The trial was hurried through and the said Carlos was convicted. But on appeal, filed by the appellant, before the Sessions Judge, the conviction was set aside and retrial ordered. These events happened between February to April, 1955. (3) Between April, 1955 to June, 1955, there occurred certain incidents which were inspired and instigated by the members of the Goan Action Committee who were agitating against Portuguese hold over Goa. There was a raid on certain pro-Portuguese presses by some private persons, in the course of which heavy damage was caused. There w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e under article 22(6) of the Constitution on behalf of the detaining authority, to get over the alleged vagueness. To appreciate the points thus raised, it is necessary to have an idea of the grounds of detention as furnished. They are to be found from the relevant communication to the detenue which is as follows : In pursuance of section 7 of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 (Act IV of 1950) you are hereby informed that the grounds on which a detention order has been made against you, by the Government of Bombay under sub-clause (i) of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 3 of the said Act are that : With the financial help given by the Portuguese authorities you are carrying on espionage on behalf of the Portuguese Government with the help of underground workers. You are also collecting intelligence about the security arrangements on the border area and you make such intelligence available to the Portuguese authorities. These activities which are being carried on by you with the object of causing further deterioration in the relations between the Portuguese Government and the Indian Government over the question of Goan National Movement, are prejudicial to the security ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gue. It is not possible to state affirmatively more on the question of what is vague. It must vary according to the circumstances of each case. .............. If on reading the ground furnished it is capable of being intelligently understood and is sufficiently definite to furnish materials to enable the detained person to make a representation against the order of detention it cannot be called vague . 10. In the present case, the detenue has been intimated why, in the opinion of the Government the activities of the appellant are considered prejudicial to the security of India and to the relations of India with Portugal. They are the following : 1. With the financial help given by the Portuguese authorities, he is carrying on espionage on behalf of the Portuguese Government with the help of underground workers. 2. He is collecting intelligence about the security arrangements on the border area and making such intelligence available to the Portuguese authorities. 3. He is carrying on these activities with the object of causing further deterioration in the relations between the Portuguese Government and the Indian Government over the question of the Goan National Mo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dequate particulars of the grounds of detention, to enable a proper representation being made. 13. These rights involve corresponding obligations on the part of the detaining authority. It follows that the authority is under a constitutional obligation to furnish reasonably definite grounds, as well as adequate particulars then and there, or shortly thereafter. But the right of the detenue to be furnished particulars, is subject to the limitation under article 22(6) whereby disclosure of facts considered to be against public interest cannot be required. It is however to be observed that under article 22(6) the facts which cannot be required to be disclosed are those which such authority considers to be against public interest to disclose . Hence it follows that both the obligation to furnish particulars and the duty to consider whether the disclosure of any facts involved therein is against public interest, are vested in the detaining authority, not in any other. It was accordingly attempted to be argued in the High Court that the claim of non-disclosure made in the affidavit of the Under-Secretary indicated a decision for non-disclosure, by the Under-Secretary himself and t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ary's affidavit in answer to para 15(g) of the appellant's petition, both of which have been already set out above. 15. A faint suggestion has been made in the course of the arguments before us that the decision not to disclose particulars is mala fide and that such mala fides has to be imputed in a case where no particulars are at all furnished. It is suggested that the power not to disclose facts considered against public interest cannot be so exercised as to nullify the constitutional right of the detenue for being afforded a proper opportunity of representation. Such a contention as to the mala fide exercise of the power is untenable in the present case having regard to the nature of the grounds on which the detention is based and the nature of activities imputed therein to the appellant. It is unnecessary, therefore, to deal in this case with a theoretical contention as to whether or not article 22(6) of the Constitution overrides the constitutional right to be furnished particulars under article 22(5) to the extent of denying all particulars and leaving the grounds absolutely vague. 16. All the contentions raised before us fail and this appeal is dismissed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
