Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

Criminal Misc. Case No. 2029 of 1955

Advocates

S.N. Dwivedi
Government Advocate

Judges

Hon'ble Mr. Radha Krishna Chowdhry
Hon'ble Mr. Mirza Nasir Ullah Beg

Acts

PREVENTIVE DETENTION ACT 1950
provisions of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution
provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution.40.
provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Structured Summary of the Opinion (Chowdhry, J.)

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioner, Sarju Pandey, a member of the Provincial Committee of the U.P. Communist Party and Vice‑President of the U.P. Kisan Sabha, challenged a detention order dated 14-5-1955 made under Section 3(1)(a)(ii) of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950. The order detained him with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. He was arrested the same day and was supplied with the grounds of detention on 16-5-1955. The grounds alleged that he had delivered speeches between 29-12-1954 and 13-5-1955 inciting people to violence, and the grounds included extracts from those speeches and instances of resultant acts of violence.

The petitioner submitted a representation to the State Government. The Government placed the grounds and the representation before the Advisory Board. The Board heard the petitioner and, by report dated 19-7-1955, opined that there was sufficient cause for detention; the Government confirmed the detention. The Government's communication of the Board’s report to the District Magistrate of Ghazipur was dated 11-8-1955 and reached him on 16-8-1955; the District Magistrate's letter to the jail where the petitioner was detained ultimately reached the petitioner on 27-8-1955. The present habeas corpus petition was filed on 26-9-1955 and is supported by the petitioner’s affidavit. The State filed a counter-affidavit by an officer who had submitted reports of the petitioner's speeches.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the truth of the statements contained in the grounds of detention can be inquired into by this Court, or whether such inquiry is precluded because the statute vests subjective satisfaction in the detaining authority.
Whether the petitioner was deprived of a fair opportunity to prove that the grounds of detention were incorrect, given the process before the Advisory Board and the communication of the Board’s report.
Whether the Advisory Board’s report had to be communicated to the detenu within three months of arrest, and whether failure to supply the Board’s report to the detenu made the detention illegal.
Whether criticism of the Government rising to "spreading disaffection" alone suffices for preventive detention, or whether the alleged speeches amounted to incitement to violence (thus placing them outside protected criticism).
Whether the District Magistrate of Ghazipur could lawfully base the detention order on speeches delivered by the petitioner in other districts (i.e., questions of territorial jurisdiction and the material admissible to satisfy the detaining authority).
Whether the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 is ultra vires the Constitution: specifically, whether it violates Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression) and Article 14 (equality before the law).

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

The extracts from his speeches in the grounds of detention were inaccurate and fabricated; he denied ever inciting the public to violence.
Press cuttings and a Communist Party resolution were shown to support his claim that he did not advocate violence and that the Party's policy was non‑violent.
As a responsible office‑bearer of his party and the Kisan Sabha, it was improbable he would urge violence; he argued he was being detained because he "carried the masses with him," not because he incited violence.
The decision of the Advisory Board should have been communicated to him within three months of his arrest; because it was communicated later, the detention was said to be illegal.
The right to criticise a party Government should protect him if his activities were mere honest criticism (relying on Ahmad Ali v. State).
The District Magistrate had no power to base detention on speeches made in other districts (Azamgarh and Ballia).
The Act was submitted to be ultra vires the Constitution: an alleged infringement of Article 19(1)(a) and Article 14.

State's Arguments (as set out in the counter-affidavit)

The objectionable portions of the speeches were in fact uttered by the petitioner (the State asserted the excerpts were correct).
The Advisory Board heard the petitioner and reported that there was sufficient cause for detention; the Government confirmed the detention.
The communication of the Board's report and the steps taken by the authorities satisfied the procedural requirements of the Act as applied in this case.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Bhim Sen v. State of Punjab, 1951 SC 481 (AIR V 38)	Establishes that where the Legislature has left the making of a detention order to the subjective satisfaction of the authority, the truth of statements in the grounds of detention is beyond the jurisdiction of the Court to decide.	The Court relied on this authority to refuse to enter into the truth of the extracts quoted in the grounds of detention and declined to adjudicate those factual disputes.
Mohammad Athar Rizvi v. State, 1951 All 456 (AIR V 38)	Consistent with the proposition that the Court will not re‑open the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority by testing the truth of the grounds.	Referred to alongside Bhim Sen to support the Court's position that it cannot probe the veracity of the grounds of detention.
Hari Nath Tandon v. The State of U.P., 1950 All LJ 608	Similar authority cited for the limited scope of judicial inquiry into grounds of preventive detention when subjective satisfaction is conferred.	Used to reinforce the point that the Court will not retry factual allegations that underlie the detaining authority's satisfaction.
Shibban Lal v. State of U.P., 1954 SC 179 (AIR V 41)	Holds that non‑existence of any of the grounds upon which the detention order is based would be a basis for the Advisory Board to hold that there was no sufficient cause for detention.	The Court observed that since the Board reported sufficiency of cause, either the petitioner failed to allege non‑existence of grounds before the Board or the Board rejected such an allegation; this supported the conclusion the petitioner had his opportunity before the Board.
Gopalan v. The State of Madras, 1950 SC 27 (AIR V 37)	Explains that Article 21 uses the phrase "procedure established by law" and that courts should not substitute their views on legislative wisdom and policy; protection against legislative tyranny rests in public opinion.	The Court quoted Gopalan to support the proposition that it is not for courts to question the wisdom or policy of legislative provisions authorising preventive detention and to emphasise the role of legislative/political remedies over judicial policy questioning.
Ahmad Ali v. State, 1951 All 459 (AIR V 38) (V. Bhargava, J.)	Holds that spreading disaffection against a party Government may be protected, but this right does not extend to speech that amounts to incitement to violence.	The Court relied on this to distinguish protected criticism from incitement: because the grounds alleged incitement to violence, the petitioner could not be treated as merely an honest critic.
State of Bombay v. Atmaram, 1951 SC 157 (AIR V 38)	Indicates that judicial examination of grounds may be undertaken to see whether they are sufficient to enable the detenu to make an effective representation contemplated by Article 22(5).	The Court cited this authority to delimit the permissible scope of examining the grounds — i.e., only to determine sufficiency for representation, relevance to circumstances of detention, or mala fides.
Ram Singh v. The State of Delhi, 1951 SC 270 (AIR V 38)	Establishes that a law depriving personal liberty falls under Articles 21 and 22, and its reasonableness cannot be tested with reference to Article 19.	The Court invoked this to reject the petitioner's argument that the Preventive Detention Act was liable to be struck down under Article 19(1)(a).
Kedar Nath v. State of W.B., 1953 SC 404 (AIR V 40)	Sets out that in challenges under Article 14 one must examine the purpose and policy of the enactment and whether the classification has a reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved.	The Court applied this test to hold that the classification in Section 3 of the Preventive Detention Act reasonably related to its object (preventing anti‑social and subversive elements) and therefore did not infringe Article 14.
Raj Kishore v. State of U.P., 1954 All 343 (AIR V 41)	States that equal protection is not violated when an exception is necessitated by another provision of the Constitution.	The Court used this to observe that preventive detention is contemplated by Article 22, so the classification under Section 3 of the Act is a constitutionally sanctioned classification and not a violation of Article 14.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court proceeded through a sequence of legal determinations that track the petitioner's grounds of attack and the statutory scheme:

On the correctness of the extracts in the grounds of detention: the Court accepted the settled rule (citing Bhim Sen and allied authorities) that where the Legislature has entrusted the making of a detention order to the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority, the truth of statements in the grounds of detention is beyond the jurisdiction of the Court to decide. Thus, the Court would not re‑open factual disputes about whether the petitioner actually incited violence.
On the petitioner's complaint of deprivation of opportunity to be heard: the Court noted that the petitioner had a full opportunity before the Advisory Board (a body composed of persons qualified to be High Court judges). The Board had heard the petitioner and reported sufficiency of cause on 19-7-1955; accordingly, the petitioner either did not raise the non‑existence of grounds before the Board or raised it and the Board rejected it. The Court held that the petitioner's grievance — that he could not re‑argue the facts in this Court — was untenable because he had the opportunity before the Board and public policy requires finality.
On the timing and communication of the Advisory Board's report: the Court observed that Section 10 requires the Board to submit its report to the appropriate Government within ten weeks; Section 11 contemplates the Government confirming or revoking the detention order on the basis of the Board's report. The Act does not require that the Board's report itself be communicated to the detenu within three months or at all. The Court therefore found no illegality in the timing or in the limited communication that occurred; in any event, the petitioner was informed of the Board's decision on 27-8-1955.
On the nature of criticism versus incitement: the Court acknowledged the authority that citizens may criticise Government (Ahmad Ali), but emphasised the limitation that criticism which amounts to incitement to violence is not protected. Because the grounds, taken as correct for the purposes of judicial restraint, alleged incitement to violence on the petitioner's part, he could not be treated as merely an honest critic.
On the territorial reach of materials relied on by the detaining authority: the Court held that preventive detention is preventive (precautionary) rather than punitive. Suspicion or reasonable probability, possibly based on past acts outside the territorial jurisdiction of the detaining authority, may justify detention if the authority honestly believes action is needed to prevent disturbance of public order. Consequently, it was lawful for the District Magistrate of Ghazipur to rely on speeches delivered by the petitioner in Azamgarh and Ballia in forming the subjective satisfaction necessary under the Act.
On constitutional challenges to the Act: the Court rejected the claim that the Preventive Detention Act was ultra vires Article 19(1)(a), citing authorities that laws depriving personal liberty fall under Articles 21 and 22 and their reasonableness cannot be tested by Article 19. As to Article 14, the Court applied the Kedar Nath framework (examine purpose/policy and whether classification has a reasonable relation to the object) and held that Section 3's classification reasonably related to the object of preventing anti‑social and subversive elements. The Court further observed (citing Raj Kishore) that where the Constitution itself contemplates preventive detention (Article 22), the classification under the Act is consistent with constitutional requirements.
Conclusion of analysis: having addressed each ground and relied on the cited precedents and statutory scheme, the Court found all the petitioner's grounds to fail.

Holding and Implications

Holding: Petition dismissed.

Implications:

The detention order made under Section 3(1)(a)(ii) of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, as confirmed by the Advisory Board and the Government, stands; the Court refused to re‑open factual determinations that fall within the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority.
The Court held that procedural provisions of the Act (including Sections 7, 10 and 11) were satisfied as applied in this case, and that there was no statutory requirement to supply the detenu with the Advisory Board's report; the detenu was in fact informed of the Board's decision without avoidable delay.
The Court rejected the petitioner's constitutional challenges under Articles 19 and 14 on the bases set out in the cited authorities and the statutory scheme; it applied established precedent rather than creating new principle.
No new precedent was announced by the Court; the decision applies existing authorities to the facts of this case and leaves intact the principle that administrative subjective satisfaction under the Preventive Detention Act is not ordinarily reviewable by courts on the truth of the underlying factual allegations.

Judge: Chowdhry, J. — petition dismissed (order recorded at paragraph 42 of the opinion).

Show full summary ...

Sarju Pandey v. State

Chowdhry, J.:— This is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus by one Sarju Pandey, a detenu in the District Jail at Lucknow, against the order of the District Magistrate of Ghazipur, dated 14-5-1955, passed under Section 3(1)(a)(ii) of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 hereinafter referred to as the Act. The order purported to have been passed with a view to preventing the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

2. The petitioner is a member of the Provincial Committee of the U.P Communist Party and Vice-President of the U.P Kishan Sabha. He was arrested on the same day on which the detention order was passed and on 16-5-1955 he was supplied with the grounds of detention. He was accused of having delivered a number of speeches between 29-12-1954 and 13-5-1955 inciting people to violence, and the District Magistrate therefore felt satisfied that it was necessary to make the detention order with a view to preventing the petition from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State and the maintenance of public order. The gist of these speeches, or extracts therefrom, were given in the grounds, and instances of resultant acts of violence were cited. The petitioner made a representation against the detention order to the State Government, and the latter placed the grounds for the detention and the petitioner's representation against it before the Advisory Board. The Board, after hearing the petitioner, submitted its report on 19-7-1955 that there was in its opinion sufficient cause for the detention of the petitioner whereupon the detention order was confirmed by the Government.

3. The report of the Advisory Board was communicated to the District Magistrate of Ghazipur by the Government by means of a letter dated 11-8-1955 from Lucknow. This letter reached the-District Magistrate of Ghazipur on 16-8-1955, and on the same date the District Magistrate issued a letter addressed to the Superintendent, Sitapur Jail, where the detenu was then supposed to be detained, informing him of the decision of the Advisory Board.

4. It appears, however, that meanwhile the detenu had been transferred to the Lucknow Jail. The aforesaid letter of the District Magistrate was therefore redirected to the Lucknow Jail and communicated there to the petitioner on 27-8-1955. On 26-9-1955 the present petition was filed. The petition is supported by the petitioner's affidavit.

5. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State by Rana Jai Singh, Sub-Inspector District Intelligence Staff Ghazipur, he being the officer who had submitted reports of the speeches delivered in various meetings by the petitioner. The following points have been raised by the petitioner, who argued the case personally before us.

6. The grounds supplied to the petitioner reproduce extracts from the petitioner's speeches; According to those extracts, the petitioner purports on a number of occasions to have incited people to violence. The first point taken by the petitioner was that the aforesaid extracts were not a correct reproduction of the speeches delivered by him, his contention being that the portions of the speeches attributed to him in which he is alleged to have incited people to violence were mere fabrications.

7. According to him, he never uttered a word inciting the public to violence and words to that effect had been introduced into his speeches in order to justify his arrest under the Preventive Detention Act. He brought to our notice a number of cuttings from two newspapers, the Aj Banaras and the Quami Aawaz Lucknow, in which references were made to some of the speeches delivered by the petitioner.

8. In some of the cuttings there were comments in respect of certain meetings addressed by the petitioner. It was argued by the petitioner that in none of these extracts was there any reference made to his having incited the public to violence. He also showed to us a booklet published by the Communist Party containing a Resolution which purports to have been passed by the Central Committee of the Party in June 1955.

9. It was argued by the petitioner that the Resolution in question showed that it was not the policy of the Communist Party to propagate its tenets by violent means. The petitioner also argued that he was a responsible person in that he was a member of the Provincial Committee of the U.P Communist Party and Vice-President of the U.P Kisan Sabha and therefore it was unthinkable that he should have made speeches in citing the public to violence against the tenets of his party.

10. It has however been stated in the counter-affidavit that the objectionable portions in question in the speeches of the petitioner were in fact uttered by him. The petitioner admitted before us that there were many active members of the Communist Party who, like him, had made speeches, but that he and a few others were the ones to be detained under the Act. His contention was that the Government chose them for detention, not because they had really incited the people to violence, but because they carried the masses with them.

11. It is difficult to accept this contention since no action under the Act would prima facie be necessary against a person who merely carried the masses with him without inciting them to violence. It is however not necessary to enter into this controversy since it is well established that, the Legislature having left the making of the detention order to the subjective satisfaction of the authority concerned, the question of the truth of the statements contained in the grounds of detention is beyond the jurisdiction of the Court to decide. Bhim Sen v. State of Punjab, 1951 SC 481 (484) (AIR V 38) (A); Mohammad Athar Rizvi v. State 1951 All 456(459) (AIR V 38) (B) and Hari Nath Tandon v. The State of U.P, 1950 All LJ 608 (610) (C).

12. It was strenuously argued by the petitioner in this connection that it amounted to an act of tyranny that a detenu should be deprived of the opportunity of proving before the Court that the statements contained in the grounds for detention were incorrect. This complaint of deprivation of opportunity to be heard is really untenable since it was open to him to prove the allegation before the Advisory Board. And it is noteworthy that the Board, constituted under the Act, consists of three persons who are, or have been, or are qualified to be, appointed as Judges of a High Court.

13. Non-existence of any of the grounds upon which the detention order is based would, according to the Supreme Court decision in Shibban Lal v. State of U.P, 1954 SC 179 (181) (AIR V 41) (D), be a basis for the Board to hold that there was no sufficient cause for detention. If therefore the Board in the present case reported sufficiency of cause for detention, it was due presumably either to the petitioner's failure to allege non-existence of grounds before the Board or to the Board's rejection of that allegation.

14. It is manifest therefore that the petitioner had the fullest opportunity of having his allegation of non-existence of grounds judicially determined by the Board: either he failed to avail himself of that opportunity or he did so but unsuccessfully. His complaint therefore boils down to this that he has no second opportunity of proving the allegation in this Court.

15. But a petition for a writ of habeas corpus is not the only judicial proceeding where finality is given to a finding of fact before it reaches this Court. If therefore the petitioner cannot canvass again in this Court the aforesaid question of fact, it is not because of any transgression of the well-known maxim of natural justice, Audi alteram partem — no man shall be condemned unheard — but because public policy requires that there should be an end to litigation.

16. Article 21 of our Constitution empowers the Legislature to provide for preventive detention, and the Act in question is a product of that power. Should it be considered that under the Act or the Constitution there ought to be a provision for a reagitation of the matter in this Court, and that the absence of such a provision is an instance of legislative tyranny, the remedy lies in the public opinion asserting itself through the Legislature, and not in its questioning the wisdom and policy of the Legislature before a Court of Law, inasmuch as a Court must administer the law as it finds it. In this connection the following observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Gopalan v. The State of Madras, 1950 SC 27 (AIR V 37) (E) are opposite:

“The only right given by Article 21 is that no person shall be deprived of his life or liberty except according to ‘procedure established by law’. By adopting that phrase, the Constitution gave the Legislature the final word to determine law…… Our protection against legislative tyranny if any, lies, in the ultimate analysis, in a free and intelligent public opinion which must eventually assert itself…… It is not for the Court to question the wisdom and policy of the ‘Constitution which the people gave unto themselves.”

17. The other ground taken was that the decision of the Advisory Board should have been communicated to the petitioner within three months of his arrest and that inasmuch as it was actually communicated to him 3 months and 14 days after his arrest his detention was illegal. The Act does not, however, provide anywhere for the communication of the Advisory Board's report to the detenu. Under S. 10 the report has to be submitted by the Board only to the appropriate Government within 10 weeks from the date of detention.

18. In point of fact, it would be quite unnecessary that the Board's report should be supplied to the detenu himself since the only use made of the report, as provided by S. 11, is that in a case where the Board has reported that there is in its opinion sufficient cause for the detention of a person the appropriate Government may confirm the detention order and continue the detention of the person concerned for such period as it thinks fit, and in a case where it has reported that there is in its opinion no sufficient cause for the detention of the person concerned, the appropriate Government shall revoke the detention order and cause the person to be released forthwith.

19. In other words, the Board's report only serves the purpose of enabling the appropriate Government either to confirm the detention order and continue the detention of the person concerned or to revoke that order and cause the person to be released forthwith. That being so, no question of supplying the detenu with a copy of the Advisory Board's report arises, for it would be of no use to the detenu.

20. It may be noted that wherever it is necessary for a particular material to be supplied to the detenu, there is a clear provision for the same. For instance, Article 22(5) of the Constitution provides that when any person is detained in pursuance of an order made under any law providing for preventive detention, the authority making the order shall, as soon as may be, communicate to such person the grounds on which the order has been made and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order.

21. Accordingly, S. 7 of the Act provides for the communication of the grounds of detention to the detenu not later than 5 days from the date of detention. It will appear therefore that the petitioner cannot legitimately make any grievance of non-supply to him of a copy of the Advisory Board's report. It may be mentioned incidentally, however, that, as already shown, the petitioner was in fact informed of the decision of the Advisory Board, and that without any avoidable delay. The report was made on 19-7-1955, and, by means of a letter dated 11-8-1955, the petitioner was actually informed of the same on 27-8-1955. The objection with regard to non-supply of Advisory Board's report has also therefore no force.

22. The next ground taken was that the petitioner was only an honest critic of the Government and that the right to criticise a party Government has been judicially recognised. In this connection the petitioner cited the following from the decision of V. Bhargava J. in Ahmad Ali v. State, 1951 All 459 (AIR V 38) (P).

“Spreading of disaffection against a party Government cannot be said to be a ground for inferring that the public order would not be maintained. It is the right of every citizen in a democratic Government to spread disaffection against a particular party Government”.

23. But the learned Judge goes on to observe:

“This right is, of course, subject to the condition that the disaffection should not be so spread as to result in violence and there should be really no incitement to use violence, or to resort to other illegitimate course.”

24. It has, however, been seen that in a number of speeches delivered by the petitioner (the correctness of which has, for reasons already recorded, to be accepted by this Court) he purports to have incited the public to violence. That being so, it cannot be said that the petitioner is only an honest critic of the Governments.

25. The last ground taken in the present petition was that the District Magistrate of Ghazipur was not empowered to use as grounds for the petitioner's detention the speeches which he is alleged to have made in other districts, i.e in the districts of Azamgarh and Ballia.

26. The various speeches which the petitioner is said to have delivered, including those delivered in the districts of Azamgarh and Ballia, formed the material on the basis of which the detention order in question was passed by the District Magistrate of Ghazipur. They constituted the material which enabled the District Magistrate to be ‘satisfied’ with respect to the petitioner that it was necessary to make an order of detention against him with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

27. That subjective satisfaction as regards the sufficiency of the grounds for passing a detention order is the satisfaction exclusively of the authority which has to pass such an order, and it is not for this Court to enter into the merits of that order. See, for instance, 1951 SC 481 (AIR V 38) (A).

28. That being so, it follows necessarily that it is not open to this Court to examine the said materials with a view to determining whether the aforesaid subjective satisfaction of the executive authority concerned had been arrived at correctly or not. The only purpose for which the grounds, and therefore the material for those grounds, could be judicially examined would be to see whether they were sufficient to enable the detenu to make an effective representation contemplated by Article 22(5) of the Constitution, State of Bombay v. Atmaram, 1951 SC 157 (163) (AIR V 38) (G), or whether they were relevant to the circumstances under which the detention could be supported, 1950 SC 27 (46 & 89) (AIR V 37) (e), or whether the order had been made mala fide (the 2 cases just cited).

29. There is no complaint before us, however, that the grounds in question suffer in any of these ways. It follows therefore that it is not open to the petitioner to urge before us that the District Magistrate had no jurisdiction or authority to take into account the speeches delivered by him in the districts of Ballia and Azamgarh with a view to passing the order of detention in question.

30. This contention of the petitioner may be looked at from yet another view point. Preventive detention is by its very nature different from what may be called punitive detention. The latter results, as pointed out in Gopalan's case (E), on a trial of the person concerned for committing a crime after his guilt has been established in a competent Court of justice, whereas the former is not a punitive but a precautionary measure the object of which is not to punish a man for having done something but to intercept him before he does it and to prevent him doing it.

31. The object in the present case was to prevent the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. That being so, as pointed out in the same ruling, justification for action under the Act is suspicion or reasonable probability and not criminal conviction. Such a suspicion may well be based on any past actions of the person concerned, and they may even be actions committed outside the jurisdiction of the authority passing the order of detention.

32. It would indeed create an anomalous situation, and a situation which might defeat the very purpose of the Act, if the authority concerned were to wait for the person concerned to commit acts subversive of public order within its own territorial jurisdiction before being able to take action under it. Indeed, the authority concerned might take action against the person concerned even though he may not have already committed any act subversive of public order.

33. For instance, the authority may come to know that the person concerned was in communication with persons outside its jurisdiction, and that the purpose of such communication was to commit acts in future which had potentialities for disturbing public order. In such a case, if the authority concerned honestly comes to the conclusion that unless action against the person concerned is taken under the provisions of the Act there would be a danger of the disturbance of public order at the hands of the person in question, the authority concerned would be well within its rights to pass a detention order against such a person even though by that time no act had actually emanated from him.

34. For the above reasons, the contention of the petitioner that the District Magistrate of Ghazipur had no power to pass the detention order in question on foot of the speeches made by him outside his territorial jurisdiction has no force.

35. Two other grounds were taken by the petitioner before us although they are not contained in his petition. He was allowed to take these grounds because they raised pure questions of law. The gravamen of both those grounds was that the Preventive Detention Act was ultra vires the Constitution. His first contention was that the Act was ultra vires the provisions of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution guaranteeing freedom of speech and expression to all the citizen of this country.

36. The point is however well covered by authority since it has been laid down in a number of cases that a law which deprives a person of his personal liberty falls exclusively under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution, and that the reasonableness of such a law cannot be questioned with reference to Article 19 of the Constitution. 1950 SC 27 (AIR V 37) (e) and ‘Ram Singh v. The State of Delhi’, 1951 SC 270 (AIR V 38) (H).

37. It was next urged that the Act is ultra vires the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution which guarantees to all equality before the law. Now, it is well recognised that wherever a law is challenged as offending against the guarantee contained in Article 14, the first and foremost thing to do is to examine the purpose and policy of the enactment concerned and then to see whether the classification which it purports to make has a reasonable relation to the object which the enactment in question seeks to obtain, ‘Kedar Nath v. State of W.B’, 1953 SC 404 (406) (AIR V 40) (I). The Preventive Detention Act provides for preventive detention in certain cases.

38. Those are cases mentioned in S. 3 of the Act, and cover the reasons specified in Entry 9 of List I and Entry 3 of List III of Sch. VIII of the Constitution (Defence, Foreign Affairs, Security of India or of a State, Maintenance of Public Order or of Supplies and Services essential to the community).

39. Obviously the purpose and policy of the Act is to prevent anti-social and subversive element from imperilling the welfare of the Republic. The classification of persons under S. 3 of the Act has been made keeping in view the said purpose and policy, and it is obvious therefore that the classification in question has a reasonable relation to the object of the Legislature in passing this enactment. That being so, the enactment in question cannot be said to infringe the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution.

40. Moreover, equal protection is not violated if the exception which is made is required to be made by some, other provision of the Constitution: ‘Raj Kishore v. State of U.P’, 1954 All 343 (AIR V 41) (J). Now preventive detention has been recognised by Article 22 of the Constitution itself. That being so, the classification made under S. 3 of the Act, which as already shown, is a classification made to subserve the purposes of preventive detention, is a classification required to be made by to provision of the Constitution.

41. It follows therefore that the equal protection contemplated by Article 14 of the Constitution cannot for said to have been violated by the Act. Thus, both the grounds taken by the petitioner for challenging the vires of the Act vis-a-vis the Constitution also fail. As all the grounds urged by the petitioner fail, his petition is hereby dismissed.

G.M.J

42. Petition dismissed.

Sarju Pandey v. State

Structured Summary of the Opinion (Chowdhry, J.)

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

State's Arguments (as set out in the counter-affidavit)

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Sarju Pandey v. State

Comments