Court upholds detention order despite new magistrate, finds grounds specific, justifies detention for inciting revolt.

In Re: Maganlal Jivabhai Patel

In Re: Maganlal Jivabhai Patel - AIR 1951 Bom 33 Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Detention Order due to the change in District Magistrate.
2. Vagueness of the Grounds for Detention.
3. Authority of the Detaining Authority to Determine the Illegality of Strikes.
4. Allegation of Exhorting Public to Revolt and its Impact on Freedom of Expression.
5. Compliance with Article 22(5) of the Constitution regarding Communication of Grounds.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Detention Order due to the change in District Magistrate:
The detenu argued that the detention order, initially passed by Mr. Damry, was executed after he was succeeded by Mr. Ghatge, who did not apply his mind to the detention. The court held that an order issued by a District Magistrate takes effect upon issuance and remains valid until revoked. The time between the order's issuance and execution was less than three months, which was deemed reasonable. Therefore, the change in District Magistrate did not invalidate the detention order.

2. Vagueness of the Grounds for Detention:
The detenu contended that the grounds for detention were vague. The court examined the grounds and found the first ground to be vague as it did not specify the activities or the nature of the agitation. However, the second and third grounds were deemed specific enough. The second ground detailed the detenu's incitement of illegal strikes and violence among labor classes, and the third ground specified the publication of unauthorized news sheets exhorting violent revolt. The court concluded that the second and third grounds provided sufficient particulars to enable the detenu to make a representation.

3. Authority of the Detaining Authority to Determine the Illegality of Strikes:
The detenu argued that only a Labour Court or Industrial Court could determine the legality of strikes under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946. The court disagreed, stating that the detaining authority has the power to determine both questions of fact and law, including the legality of strikes, for the purpose of detention under the Preventive Detention Act. The court emphasized that the detaining authority's determination of the strike's illegality was within its jurisdiction.

4. Allegation of Exhorting Public to Revolt and its Impact on Freedom of Expression:
The detenu claimed that the third ground, which involved publishing news sheets exhorting violent revolt, was an infringement of his freedom of expression. The court held that while the publication of unauthorized news sheets is an offense, the specific content exhorting violent revolt justified detention under the Preventive Detention Act. The court clarified that the same act could warrant restrictions on both freedom of expression and personal liberty.

5. Compliance with Article 22(5) of the Constitution regarding Communication of Grounds:
The detenu argued that the grounds were communicated by Mr. Ghatge, not the original detaining authority, Mr. Damry, violating Article 22(5). The court interpreted "the authority making the order" to mean the office of the District Magistrate, not the individual. Therefore, the communication of grounds by Mr. Ghatge was valid. The court also emphasized that the grounds must include sufficient facts to enable the detenu to make an effective representation, and any omission must be justified under Article 22(6) if it is against public interest.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the application, holding that the detention order was valid despite the change in District Magistrate, the grounds provided were sufficiently specific, the detaining authority had the power to determine the illegality of strikes, the allegation of exhorting public to revolt justified detention, and the communication of grounds complied with Article 22(5) of the Constitution.