UNION OF INDIA C T A PILLAI STATE OF KARNATAKA UNION OF INDIA STATE OF MAHARASHTRA STATE OF KARNATAKA D J SHIRARAM THE STATE OF KARNATAKA UNION OF INDIA Vs. BHANUDAS KRISHNA GAWDE:RAMESH RAMLAL NARANG:SHRI GURUNATH KULKARNI:TEJRAJ GHAMANDIRAM GOWANI:P T SANGHVI:SARASWATAMMA:THE COMMR OF POLICE BANGALORE:C R SATISH AND OTH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Judgments of the court were delivered by

(2.) THESE appeals, some of which have been preferred by certificates granted under Articles 133 and 134 (l) (c) of the Constitution and others by special leave granted by this court under Article 136 of the Constitution, and which are directed against various final and interim judgments and orders of the High courts of Bombay and Karnataka passed in Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution by or on behalf of certain persons who are detained under orders of the appropriate authorities made under S. 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (Act 52 of 1974) (hereinafter referred to as the Act') complaining of certain constraints imposed on them under orders made under S. 5 of the Act and claiming facilities in excess of those provided in the said orders, shall be disposed of by this judgment. A gist of the orders appealed against and particulars of the petitions in which they have been passed are given in the sub-joined table for facility of reference: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_834_1_1977Html1.htm</FRM>

(3.) MR. Seervai, MR. Ashok Sen, MR. Desai and MR. Dattar, learned Counsels for the detenus have, on the other hand, emphasized: (1) that preventive detention does not stand on the same footing as punitive detention and while it cannot be gainsaid that persons who can be prosecuted and punished for offences against the law can also be preventively detained they can not be punitively treated; (2) that considerations relevant for applications seeking relief of release by habeas corpus are not relevant to cases in which conditions of detention fall for consideration; (3) that the principle of legality and the doctrine of ultra vires are not abrogated even during the times of emergency and the exercise of power under S. 5 of the Act must have a reasonable nexus with the purpose for which the power is conferred; (4) that if according to the majority judgment in Additional District Magistrate, Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla even habeas corpus could issue in cases where the order is not duly authenticated then the conditions of detention can certainly be scrutinized and relief can be granted if those conditions are found to be illegal or ultra vires; (5) that the aforesaid clauses of the Maharashtra Conditions of Detention Order, 1974, being ultra vires and violative of the principles of reasonableness and legality have rightly been struck down by the High court of Bombay; <PG>848</PG> (6) that a curtain cannot be drawn round the detenu and while he can be cut off from undesirable contacts, he cannot be cut off from unobjectionable contacts; (7) that if the place of detention mentioned in a detention order is a prison, then the detenu would be governed by the Prisons Act but not if the detenu is lodged elsewhere; 8. that the detenus' grievances are not 'echoes' of Article 19 of the Constitution but are the echoes of the 'totality' of law; (9) that it is not right to say that what is not contained in Article 19 of the Constitution is contained in Article 21 of the Constitution as this submission ignores Articles 15, 25 and 26 of the Constitution which are applicable even to non-citizens.