KHUDIRAM DAS Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -This is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under Art. 32 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the detention of the petitioner under an order of detention dated 3rd November, 1973 passed by the District Magistrate, Malda under sub-section 11) read with sub-section (2) of S. 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971. The questions raised in this petition are of importance as they affect the fundamental right of personal liberty which is one of-the most cherished fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. It is necessary to state the facts giving rise to this petition in so far as they are material to a proper understanding of the important issues involved this petition.

(2.) The District Magistrate, Malda passed an order of detention dated 3rd November, 1973 under sub - section (1) read with sub-section (2) of S. 3 of the Act directing that the petitioner be detained on the ground that it was necessary so to do "with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community." Within two days after the making of the order of detention, that is on 5th November, 1973, the District Magistrate made a report to the State Government and forwarded to the State Government, along with his report, copies of the order of detention, the history-sheet of the petitioner - a document to which we shall have occasion to refer in some detail a little later - and the grounds on which the order of detention was made. The State Government, presumably on a consideration of the total material forwarded by the District Magistrate, approved the order of detention on 12th November, 1973 under sub-section (3) of S. 3 of the Act. It appears that the petitioner could not be apprehended for some time and it was only on 25th December, 1973 that he was ultimately arrested pursuant to the order of detention. Immediately on his arrest, the petitioner was served with a copy of the grounds of detention as required by Section 8, sub-section (1) of the Act. The grounds of detention stated that the petitioner was being detained:

(3.) The petition was presented by the petitioner from jail and since he was not represented by any counsel, this Court appointed Mr. R. K. Jain, amicus curiae to present the case on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. R. K. Jain on behalf of the petitioner urged the following grounds against the validity of the order of detention: