DHANI RAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 3rd July, 1969, we recorded a short order releasing Dhani Ram whom we found to be illegally kept in District/Special Jail at Dharamsala pursuant to an order made by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Palampur. on 20th June, 1939. We now proceed to record the. detailed order giving reasons for our decision.

(2.) This is the second instance in this Court when on inspection of a Sub-Jail in Himachal Pradesh, citizens have been found to be kept in custody along with convicts and other inmates of the prison on the ground that they are considered to be lunatics. In Golo v. Union of India. a Bench of this Court dealt with cases of foui citizens who were detailed in custody in Solan Sub-Jail as lunatics. As a result of the inspection of the Sub-Jail on 14th June, 1967, it was discovered that Order directing their detention were not in accordance with law. After going into the legality of their detention in hubas corpus proceedings they were all directed to be released because the orders of their detention were found legally unsustainable. It is a matter for regret that in spite of the legal position having been clarified in that judgment the officers in Himachal Pradesh, exercising magisterial power of arresting and confining in prison persons deemed by them to be lunatics, have not yet adequately realised that in this country people are governed by law and not by men and that personal liberty of a citizen is a most zealously cherished right, of which he is not to be lightly deprived. According to the constitutional guarantee, a person can be deprived of his personal liberty only in accordance with procedure established by law. In the 'case in hand, during the course of inspection of the District/Special Jail at Dharamsala on 24th June. 1969. Dhani Ram son of Digali was found to be detained there on the ground that he was considered by the larned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Palamber to be a lunatic. The order of the learned Magistrate shown at the time of inspection in justification of the detention did not appear to be covered by the provisions of the Indian Lunacy Act IV of 1912 (hereafter called the Act). A suo motu notice v.as thereupon issued for Dhani Ram's production before a Bench of this Court and the Deputy Superintendent of the District/Special Jail at Dharamsala as also the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Palampur, were required to show cause why Dhani Ram be not released, Notices of these proceedings were also issued to the Himachal Pradesh authorites so as to enable them to respresent their point of view. It is somewhat unfortunate that the authorities concerned did not choose to file in this Court a proper return or to place on the- record of this case ' the relevant material on the basis of which Dhani Ram's detention had been ordered and continued. Shri T. C. Chitkara, the learned counsel appearing tor the' State of 'Himachal Pradesh however, produced for our perusal the original' order of the learned Magistrate which was also shown at the time of the inspection of the District/Special Jail at Dharamsala on 24th June, 1963. The original opinion of the doctor who appears to have examined Dhani Ram at Dharamsala on 21st June, 1969 and again on 28th June, wasal?o produced for our perusal. These original docutments were also, for reasons best known to the authorities concerned, not placed on the record. On the basis of these documents, no serious attempt was made by the learned Counsel for the State to justity the legality of Dhani Ram's detention, as indeed' it was scarcely p3ssible to sustain his detention on those documents. This case is directly covered by the decision in Golo's case where the legal position was succinctly stated by a Bench of this Court. We, however, proceed once again to deal with the matter in the hope that the authorities administering the Union territory of Himachal Pradesh would in future keep the legal position in view before making orders of detention on the alleged ground of a person being a lunatic.

(3.) It cannot he over-emphasised that according to our Constitution, no person can be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. The Constitution, which the people of India gave to themselves in 1950, is intended to secure to all citizens of our Sovereign Democratrc Republic, Justice, Liberty, Equality and Fraternity Part III of the Constitution contains the fundamental rights guaranteed thereby and Article 21 in that Part read with Articles;32 and 226, embody the principal bulwark of personal liberty in this Republic. This guarantee I as its roots in the English Mangna Carta of the year 1215 when the rebellious Barons of England virtually extracted from King John their rights, including the right of persona! liberty- In this respect, the Indian Constitution is in a way a legitimate heir (with inevitable improvement) of the Magna Carta.