WASIUDDIN AHMED Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE ALIGARH U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution by one Wasiuddin Ahmed for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus for the release of his brother Manzar Safi @ Safiuddin who has been detained by an order of detention dated February 21, 1981 passed by the District Magistrate, Aligarh, under sub-sec. (2) of S. 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), on his being satisfied that his detention was necessary with a view to preventing him from "acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order". On the same day, the District Magistrate made a report to the State Government about the passing of the detention order together with the grounds of detention and all other partirulars bearing on the same. The said report and other particulars were considered by the State Government and it approved of the detention order under sub-sec. (4) of S. 3 of the Act and sent a report to the Central Government under S. 3 (5) of the Act. It appears that the detenu could not be apprehended till March 9, 1981 when he suddenly emerged in the glare of lime-light before the Press under the care of politicians at Delhi. He was taken into custody by the Aligarh Police from Tilak Marg Police Station, New Delhi. The District Magistrate apprehending an untoward incident in his district, directed, that the detenu be taken to the Central Jail Agra, where he was served with the detention order together with the grounds of detention as well as documents in support thereof, but the detenu declined to accept the documents on the ground that he was not conversant with Hindi. The detenu was removed to the Central Jail, Fatehgarh where he is at present under detention.

(2.) The State Government forwarded the case of the petitioner to the Advisory Board in due course under S. 10 of the Act along with detention order together with the grounds of detention. The detenu was on March 25, 1981, served with translated copies of some 80 documents, many of which were in Hindi. At the hearing before the Advisory Board on April 21, 1981, the detenu submitted his representation. On the same day, the Advisory Board, after considering the materials placed before it and the said representation and after giving a personal hearing to the detenu, made a report to the State Government under sub-sec. (1) of S. 11 of the Act to the effect that there was sufficient cause for the detention. By an order dated May 1, 1981, the State Government, in exercise of its powers under sub-sec. (1) of S. 12 of the Act, confirmed the order of detention.

(3.) In response to the rule nisi, the District Magistrate, Aligarh, the Joint Secretary to the State Government of Uttar Pradesh, Ministry of Home and the Additional District Magistrate (City), Aligarh have filed counter-affidavits by which they explain the circumstances which led to the issuance of the detention order. They controvert the allegations made by the detenu and unequivocally state that the constitutional safeguards of Art. 22 (5) and that of Sec. 8 of the Act, have been strictly complied with. They allege that the detenu on his being taken into detention, on March 3, 1981 was served with the order of detention together with the grounds of detention and the relevant documents in support thereof at the Central Jail Agra but he refused to accept the documents some of which happen to be in Hindi, the Official Language of Uttar Pradesh on the pretext that he did not know Hindi. But a few days thereafter from the Central Jail Fatehgarh he desired to have English translation of all the documents which were later given to him. They assert that the detenu knows Hindi very well but kept on harassing all concerned by pleading ignorance of the language for the purpose of compelling the District administration to supply English translation of all the Hindi documents. They contend that the grounds of detention set out all the basic facts and materials which had been taken into account by the District Magistrate in making the order of detention and that his subjective satisfaction was reached on a consideration of all the materials placed before him. They state that the detenu instead of making a representation before the Government submitted it directly to the Advisory Board and further that the Advisory Board gave him a personal hearing. They contend that the District Magistrate was entitled to take into consideration besides what had been reported against the detenu, such other particulars, as in his opinion, had a bearing on the matter such as intelligence reports and his previous criminal record, etc.