1956 (4) TMI 73 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court upholds validity of detention order under Preventive Detention Act, 1950. No merit found in appeal contentions.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the validity of the detention order under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950. The Court found no merit ... - Issues Involved:1. Mala fide detention order.2. Non-application of mind by the detaining authority.3. Vagueness of the grounds of detention.4. Unsustainable claim of non-disclosure of particulars in public interest.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Mala fide Detention Order:The appellant contended that the detention order was mala fide, aimed at curbing his freedom of speech and professional activities concerning Goan affairs due to his known views. The appellant's background included a sudden police search on August 24, 1954, where no illicit liquor was found, but documents and a typewriter were seized. He was taken into illegal custody, interrogated, and assaulted. The High Court had directed the return of the seized items, which were returned only in January 1955. The appellant also provided professional assistance to Joaquim Carlos, a Portuguese soldier, which led to further police actions perceived as high-handed. The Supreme Court, after reviewing the material, agreed with the High Court that there was no sufficient evidence to prove that the detaining authority acted mala fide. The Court emphasized that the bona fides of the detaining authority, not the police, were in question.2. Non-application of Mind by the Detaining Authority:The appellant argued that the detaining authority did not apply its mind independently and acted on the police's instance, who were allegedly in league with the Goan Action Committee. The Court, after reviewing the affidavit of the Chief Secretary, found no basis for the allegation of non-application of mind by the detaining authority. The Court upheld the High Court's view that the Government, as the detaining authority, must be distinguished from the police and found no reason to doubt the bona fides of the detaining authority.3. Vagueness of the Grounds of Detention:The appellant claimed that the grounds of detention were vague, lacking specific details such as the period of alleged espionage, financial aid received, names of underground workers, and details of intelligence collected. The grounds provided stated that the appellant, with financial help from Portuguese authorities, was carrying on espionage, collecting intelligence, and causing deterioration in relations between India and Portugal. The Court referred to the precedent in the State of Bombay v. Atma Ram Sridhar Vaidya, stating that grounds should be sufficiently definite to enable the detenue to make a representation. The Court found that the grounds, though not as precise as desired, were not vague given the nature of the alleged activities and the delicate relations between the two governments.4. Unsustainable Claim of Non-disclosure of Particulars in Public Interest:The appellant challenged the State's claim of non-disclosure of particulars in public interest under Article 22(6) of the Constitution. The Court noted that the right to be furnished grounds and particulars is subject to the limitation that facts against public interest need not be disclosed. The Court upheld the High Court's conclusion that the detaining authority had considered the public interest at the time of furnishing grounds. The Court found no merit in the argument that the decision not to disclose particulars should have been communicated to the detenue at the time of furnishing grounds. The Court stated that such an obligation arises only if the detenue requests particulars, which the appellant did not.Conclusion:The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the contentions of mala fide detention, non-application of mind, vagueness of grounds, and unsustainable claim of non-disclosure. The Court upheld the validity of the detention order under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950.