K K SARIN Vs. MEENAKSHI DATTA GHOSH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, K. K. Sarin, filed thispetition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying thatinasmuch as he has been illegally detained, a writ in the nature ofhabeas corpus be issued and it be ordered that he be set at liberty.Briefly, the contention was that the petitioner was being detained bythe second respondent, Superintendent, Central Jail, Tihar, NewDelhi, by virtue of an illegal and invalid order passed by the firstrespondent, Mrs. Meenakshi Datta Ghosh, Additional District Magistrate (New Delhi) Delhi, under the Maintenance of Internal SecurityAct, 1971, hereinafter called the Act. It was prayed that the saidorder of detention be quashed and the petitioner be set at liberty.We accepted this petition and directed the release of the petitioner.We now proceed to record our reasons for our decision.

(2.) The petitioner is a citizen of India who was in February, 1977 working as a Director in the Planning Commission. An F.I.R. bearing No. 26 of 1977 was lodged in Police Station, Srinivaspuri, NewDelhi, to the effect that the petitioner had committed the offencepostulated by Sections 3, 5 and 9 of the Indian Official Secrets Actread with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, thepetitioner was arrested during the night of 3rd and 4/02/1977. On Febr 15/02/1977 an order of "deemed suspension" witheffect from 4/02/1977 was passed in respect of the petitionerunder the provisions of Rule 10(2) of the Central Civil Services(Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965. The petitioner, onarrest, had been produced before a Magistrate and had been remanded to police custody till 17/02/1977. During this period, itis alleged by the petitioner, he was subjected to continuous and intense interrogation, sometimes the interrogation lasting for asmuchas 12 hours at a stretch. It is alleged that he was denied food andfluids at one stage for 72 hours. It is further alleged that he wassubjected to mental torture, threats and intimidation like his familymembers being arrested and he himself being detained under the Actindefinitely if he refused to make a confessional statement. Thirddegree methods were used for extracting various statements of factsof which, the petitioner says, he had no knowledge. Thoroughlybroken down both physically and mentally and from a sheer senseof survival, the petitioner agreed to make a confessional statementas dictated by the Police. In this condition, it is alleged, the petitioner was brought to Tihar Jail on the evening of 17/02/1977 and kept in a solitary cell till the morning of 19/02/1977. On 18/02/1977, it is alleged, the petitioner was visitedby two plain clothes men from the Police and handed over a prepared statement which he was directed to memorise for being givenas confessional statement before a Metropolitan Magistrate. On 19/02/1977 a confessional statement purported to have beenmade by the petitioner was recorded by Shri D. R. Jain, MetropolitanMagistrate. Thereafter he was brought back and on 20/02/1977 an order of detention under the Act dated 11-2-1977 andmade by the first respondent was served on the petitioner. Thisorder stated that with a view to preventing the petitioner from actingin any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of security of India itwas necessary to make an order directing that he be detained and,therefore, an order to that effect is made in exercise of the powersconferred by sub-clause (i) of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section3 of the Act. The petitioner states that along with the said order ofdetention he was served with a cyclostyled declaration under Section16A of the Act made by the first respondent. On February, 1977 thepetitioner states that he retracted his confession by sending throughthe jail a letter of that date addressed to the Secretary, Planning Commission, New Delhi. Copy of this letter has been produced on therecord by the petitioner and is Annexure P-9. On 21/03/1977the order of detention dated 11/02/1977 was revoked by thefirst respondent. She, however, passed another order of detention inrespect of the petitioner on the same day directing that he be detainedwith a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicialto the maintenance of security of India. This order was passed inexercise of powers conferred by sub-clause (i) of clause (a) of subsection (1) of Section 3 of the Act. Inasmuch as Section 16A. ofthe Act had ceased to operate on account of the proclamation ofemergency being revoked by the President of India, grounds of detention dated 21/03/1977 were also served on the petitioner.These grounds were, however, served on 4/04/1977. Thedetention order dated 21/03/1977 was also revoked by the firstrespondent by an order of 21/04/1977. Yet another order ofdetention was, however, passed on 21/04/1977. This order andthe grounds of detention both signed by the first respondent wereserved on the petitioner. Inasmuch as sixty days had elapsed since the-petitioner was arrested in connection with F. I. R. 26 of 1977, PoliceStation Srinivaspuri, a bail application was moved and he was orderedto be enlarged on bail by an Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi. Thebail bond and surety was given and the same was accepted. The orderof the Additional Sessions Judge granting bail was passed on 22/04/1977.

(3.) The petitioner's contention was that the successive orders ofdetention as well as the grounds of detention dated 21/03/1977and 21/04/1977 were issued not on the subjective satisfaction of thefirst respondent but under dictate from superior or other authorities.It was further contended that the orders of detention and the groundsof detention were illegal, mala fide and were issued in abuse of thepowers conferred by the Act. The further contention was that thepetitioner's detention was not ordered to effectuate the purposescontemplated by the Act but for ulterior motives. The validity of thegrounds of detention and the order of detention was also challengedfor non-compliance with the provisions of the Act and as being violative of Articles 21 and 22(5) of the Constitution.