TMI Blog1959 (5) TMI 62X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner be produced before this Court at the time of the hearing of the writ petition. Hence, both the matters, relating as they do, to the same subject-matter, have been heard together and will be disposed of by this judgment. It appears that Naresh Chandra Ganguli, an advocate, practising in the Calcutta High Court, made an application under ss. 491 and 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as a friend, on behalf on the petitioner, in detention in the Dum Dum Central Jail in 24 Parganas, under the orders of the Government of West Bengal. The application was made to the Calcutta High Court on the following allegations: The peti- tioner is the Secretary of the West Bengal Committee of the Bharatiya Jana Sangha, one of the four big political parties, as recognized by the Election Commission of India. On or about October 7, 1958, towards evening, when the petitioner was coming out of the Basanta Cabin, a tea stall, at the crossing of the College Street and Surya Sen Street, after having addressed a meeting at the College Square, he was stopped on the street by the police and was taken to the office of the Special Branch (Police) on Lord Sinha Road. From there, he was sent to the Dum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mbers of your party on 17-9-58 at 6, Murlidhar Sen Lane, you stated that the Indian Prime Minister had made a Present of certain Indian enclaves to Pakistan in pursuance of the policy of appeasement which has been initiated by the Late Mahatma Gandhi and called upon the members to build uP strong movement against the implementation of Nehru- Noon Pact. You also tried to. rouse passions by alleging that the Indian Prime Minister had no sympathy for West Bengal. 3. That on 26-9-58 you attended another meeting of the South Durtolla Branch of the Jana Sangha at Jatin Mitter Park, where you denounced the aforesaid agreement between the two Prime Ministers and stressed the need of forming a militia with the youths of the country for the safety of the people living in border areas and urged all to enrol themselves for the said purpose. 4. That you intend to proceed to Delhi on 9-10-58 and that you are likely to instigate plans which may adversely affect the personal security of the Prime Minister of India. Your action above is bound to result in the maintenance of public order being prejudicially affected. You are hereby informed that you may make a representation to the State Go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gh Court, the petitioner also submitted that the grounds supplied to him, had no rational connection with the objects mentioned in s. 3 of the Act, and that, therefore, he was deprived of his right to make an effective representation. He also alleged that he was a member of a political party opposed to the party in power, and held definitely pronounced views about the failure of the Government to tackle the problem of refugees, as also about the relationship between the Government and the State of Pakistan. He also claimed to be a leader of the refugees, and as such, had been relentlessly criticising the policies of the present Government. He further asserted that the order of detention passed against him, was a clear case of political victimisation. He alleged further that the order of detention, on the face of it, was malafide, and was a clear infringement of his fundamental right to freedom of speech and association, guaranteed by the Constitution. On November 28, 1958, the petitioner was brought to the Writers' Buildings in Calcutta, and placed before the Advisory Board as constituted under the Act. The petitioner was heard in person by the Advisory Board on that date, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he petition, and he undertook to produce the original records in the Court at the hearing. Allegations of victimisation on political grounds, and that the order of detention was mala fide and in infringement of the fundamental rights of the petitioner, were specifically denied. The matter was heard by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court (Guha Roy and H. K. Sen, JJ.), which, by its order dated January 8, 1958, discharged the Rule. In the course of its judgment, the High Court made the following observations:- On a reading of the order however, it is quite clear to us that paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 do not state the grounds of the order. There is only one ground of the order and that is that the petitioner was acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and the remaining paragraphs of the order make it quite clear that what are stated in paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 constitute different pieces of evidence by which the authority making the order came to the conclusion that the petitioner was acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and therefore should be detained under the Act. Hence, the High Court, on a construction of s. 3 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... can be no grounds apart from those. The High Court then, on a reading of the Order No. 85, set out above, has held that paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 are not the grounds of detention, as contemplated by s. 3 of the Act, but that they only constitute different pieces of evidence by which the authority making the order came to the conclusion that the petitioner was acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, which was the only ground on which the order of detention in question was founded. The High Court was right in its literal construction of the order impugned in this case, which proceeds to recite the four numbered paragraphs, preceded by the introductory clause as evidenced by the particulars given below. But the case of The State of Bombay v. Atma Ram Sridhar Vaidya ((1951) S.C.R. 167), has laid it down that cl (5) of Art. 22 of the Constitution, confers two distinct though interrelated rights on the petitioner, namely, (1) the right to be informed of the grounds on which the order of detention has been made, and (2) the right to be enabled, at the earliest opportunity, to make a representation against the order. This Court further pointed out in that case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts contained in clauses and sub- clauses of s. 3 (1) (a) and (b) of the Act. Section 7 requires that the person detained should be communicated the grounds on which the order of detention has been made, so a,-, to afford him the earliest opportunity to make a representation against the order, to the appropriate Government. The statement of facts contemplated by s. 7, would, thus, constitute the grounds, and not the matters contained in one or more of the clauses and sub-clauses under s. 3 (1) (a) and (b) of the Act. Section 3 also requires that when an order of detention has been made, the State Government concerned has to be apprised of the order of detention as also of the grounds on which the order of detention has been made, together with such other particulars as have a bearing on the order and the grounds. And finally,, after the order has been approved by the State Government, that Government, in its turn, has to report to the Central Government the fact of the detention, together with the grounds on which the order of detention had been made; and such other particulars as, in the opinion of the State Government, have a bearing on the necessity for the order. Thus, on a cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... High Court characterised them and which we have called the grounds. The contention raised before the High Court has been repeated before us, that the grounds contained in para. 4, are vague and indefinite, not enabling the person detained to make his representation. It will appear from the paragraph aforesaid that the petitioner intended to proceed to Delhi on October 9,1958, with a view to instigating plans against the personal security of the Prime Minister. It is clear that the place, date and purpose of the planned nefarious activity, have all been stated as clearly as could be expected. But it was argued that it was also necessary to state the details of the plan to be hatched in Delhi. There are several answers to this contention. Paragraph 4 has reference to something which was apprehended but lay in the womb of the future. From the nature of the fact that it was not an event which had already happened but what was apprehended to be in the contemplation of the detenu and his associates, if any, no further details of the plan could possibly be disclosed. As was observed in the decision of this Court in The State of Bombay v. Atma Ram Sridhar Vaidya ((1951) S.C.R. 167) (at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he State of Jammu and Kashmir ((1956) S.C.R. 948), to the effect that if some of the reasons on which the order of detention had been based, are found to be non-existent or irrelevant, the Court ought to quash the order, because it is not in a position to know which of the reasons or the grounds, had operated on the mind of the authorities concerned, when they decided the pass the impugned order. As already pointed out, no such situation arises in this case, because, in our opinion, none of the grounds is either vague or irrelevant. It may also be pointed out that the ground of irrelevance wag not urged before the High Court, but even so, we allowed the petitioner's counsel to urge that ground before us, and having heard him on that aspect of the matter, we have no doubt that there is no justification for the contention that any of the matters taken into consideration by the authorities concerned in the matter of the detention of the petitioner, was irrelevant. For the reasons given above, it must be held that there is no merit in this appeal or in the application under Art. 32 of the Constitution. They are, accordingly, dismissed. Appeal and application dismissed. - - T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
