1951 (4) TMI 24 - SC - Indian Laws

Court upholds Preventive Detention Act constitutionality, rejects challenges on freedom of speech. Detention orders deemed valid.

RAM SINGH Versus STATE OF DELHI

The Court upheld the constitutionality of detentions under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, rejecting challenges based on freedom of speech laws. It ... - Issues Involved:1. Constitutionality of detention under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950.2. Sufficiency of grounds of detention communicated to the detainees.3. Allegation of mala fide intention behind the detention orders.4. Requirement to specify the period of detention in the detention orders.Detailed Analysis:1. Constitutionality of detention under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950:The petitioners, prominent members of a political organization, were detained under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, by the District Magistrate of Delhi. The petitioners contended that their detention was unconstitutional, citing previous Supreme Court rulings in Brij Bhushan v. State of Delhi and Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras, which restricted freedom of speech laws. However, the Court held that the validity of the Preventive Detention Act had already been upheld in A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras. The Court reiterated that a law authorizing deprivation of personal liberty did not fall within the purview of Article 19 and was not to be judged by its reasonableness under Article 19 but rather its compliance with Articles 21 and 22. The Court found no conflict between the decisions in Gopalan's case and the other cases cited by the petitioners.2. Sufficiency of grounds of detention communicated to the detainees:The petitioners argued that the grounds of detention were too vague and indefinite, preventing them from making effective representations to the Chief Commissioner, thus violating Article 22(5). The Court referred to the recent decision in The State of Bombay v. Atma Ram Sridhar Vaidya, which emphasized that grounds must be sufficiently detailed to enable the detainee to make a representation. The Court found that the grounds communicated to the petitioners, which included the dates and general nature of the speeches, were adequate. It was held that while more detailed particulars could have been provided, the grounds were sufficient to meet the requirements of Article 22(5).3. Allegation of mala fide intention behind the detention orders:The petitioners alleged that their detention was motivated by a desire to stifle political opposition rather than maintain public order. The District Magistrate, in his affidavit, denied these allegations, stating that the detention was based on materials indicating that it was necessary to prevent the petitioners from acting prejudicially to public order. The Court found no evidence to support the petitioners' claims of mala fide intentions and upheld the District Magistrate's affidavit.4. Requirement to specify the period of detention in the detention orders:The petitioners contended that the detention orders were invalid as they did not specify the period of detention. The Court referred to its decisions in Ujager Singh v. The State of Punjab and Jagjit Singh v. The State of Punjab, which clarified that since Section 12 of the Preventive Detention Act prescribed a maximum period of one year for detention, the orders could not be considered indefinite or unlawful on that ground.Separate Judgments:Mahajan J.: Dissented from the majority opinion, holding that the grounds of detention were insufficient as they did not provide the substance of the speeches, thus preventing the petitioners from making an effective representation. He emphasized that the material on which the detaining authority based its inference should have been communicated to the detainees.Bose J.: Also dissented, agreeing with Mahajan J. that the grounds were insufficient and that the gist of the offending passages should have been provided. He stressed the importance of providing adequate information to the detainees to enable them to make a meaningful representation.Conclusion:The majority judgment dismissed the petitions, upholding the constitutionality of the detentions and finding the grounds of detention sufficient. The dissenting opinions argued for the necessity of more detailed grounds to ensure the detainees' right to make an effective representation.