N B KHARE Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for a writ of habeas corpus under Art. 32; Constitution of India.

(2.) The petitioner who is the President of the All India Hindu Mahasabha since December 1943 was served with an order of externment dated 31st March 1950, that night. By that order he is directed by the District Magistrate, Delhi not to remain in the Delhi District, and immediately to remove himself from the Delhi District and not to return to the District. The order was to continue in force for three months. By another order of the Madhya Pradesh Government he was directed to reside in Nagpur. That order has been recently cancelled. The petitioner dispute the validity of the first order on the ground that the East Punjab Public Safety Act 1949, under which the order was made, is an infringement of his fundamental right given under Art. 19 (1) (d), Constitution of India. He further contends that the grounds of the order served on him are vague, insufficient and incomplete. According to him the object of the externment order passed by the District Magistrate, Delhi, was to suppress political opposition to the policy of the Government in respect of Pakistan and the Muslim League. It is alleged that because the petitioner and the Hindu Mahasabha are against the Government policy of appeasement this order is served on him. It is, therefore, mala fide and illegal. In support of his contention about the invalidity of the East Punjab Public Safety Act and its provisions as regards externment, counsel for the petitioner relied on the recent unreported judgments of the Patna High Court in Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 19 of 1950, Brejnandan v. The State of Bihar (A. I. R. (37) 1950 Pat. 322 F. B.) and of the High Court of Bombay in Criminal Application No. 114 of 1910, Re Jeshinghbhari Ishwarlal, (A.I.R. (37) 1950 Bom. 363) :

(3.) It is necessary first to ascertain the true meaning of Art. 10 (1) (d) read with cl. (5) of the same Article. There is no doubt that by the order of externment the right of the Petitioner to freedom of movement throughout the territory of India is abridged. The only question is whether the limits of permissible legislation under. Cl. (5) are excellded. That clause provides as follows :