JAGANNATH MISRA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition for a writ of habeas corpus under Art. 32 of the Constitution was heard by us on December 7, 1965. We then directed the release of the petitioner and indicated that reasons will follow later. We proceed to do so now.

(2.) The petitioner was detained by an order issued under R. 30(1)(b) of the Defence of India Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) by the Government of Orissa on December 29, 1964. He raised a number of ground challenging his detention. It is unnecessary to refer to all the grounds raised by the petitioner. It is enough to say that one of the ground raised by him was that the order of detention passed by the State Government was not based upto the satisfaction of the Government. The order was in these terms:

(3.) It is stated in this affidavit that the petitioner was ordered to be detained on December 29, 1964, by the order in question and was actually detained on December 30, 1964. The affidavit then goes on to say that after the outbreak of hostilities between China and India and the declaration of emergency by the President a close watch was set on the movements and activities of persons who either individually or as a part of an organisation were acting or were likely to act in a manner prejudicial to the safety of India and maintenance of public order, and in this connection particular attention was paid to the activities of the members of that section of the Communist Party which came to be known as the pro-Peking faction of the Party. The petitioner was a member of the pro-Peaking faction and was under close and constant watch. From the reports received regarding the activities of the petitioner the Home Minister stated in the affidavit that he was personally satisfied that it was necessary to detain the petitioner under the Rules "with a view to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the safety of India and maintenance of public order, etc". The affidavit goes on to say that the decision to detain the petitioner was made on the personal satisfaction of the Minister and that the satisfaction was based on several reports placed before the Minister with respect to the activities of the petitioner.