FATHIMA BEEBI Vs. M.K. RAVINDRANATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is one in a series of petitions praying for the issue of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, arising from the orders of detention passed under S.3(1)(c) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971, for short, the Act, as amended by, the Maintenance of Internal Security (Amendment) Ordinance, 1974 (No. 11 of 1974), issued by the President under Art.123 of the Constitution. It is by the amending Ordinance that S.3(1)(c) was enacted which is in these terms:

(2.) By order dated 20 9 1974, the Additional District Magistrate and Deputy Collector (Central), Cannanore, directed the detention of one Sri. K. S. Abdulla on the ground that he was satisfied that it was necessary to do so to prevent Sri Abdulla "from abetting other persons to smuggle goods" (Ext. P1). Sri. K. S. Abdulla was arrested at Manjeswaram by the Circle Inspector of Police, Kasaragode at 9.30 A.M. on 24 9 1974 after serving on him the original of Ext. P1. By Ext. P2 dated 28 9 1974 the grounds of detention were communicated to the detenu. In the meantime, on the 21st September 1974 the Central Government had also passed an order under S.3(1)(c) of the Act directing that the same person, Sri. K. S. Abdulla be detained and kept in custody in Central Jail, Trivandrum. Ext. P3 is a copy of the said order. It is stated in Ext. P3 that the Central Government are satisfied that it is necessary to detain and keep Sri. Abdulla in custody with a view "to preventing him from smuggling goods or abetting other persons to smuggle goods." Grounds for this order of detention were communicated to the detenu by Ext. P4 dated 28th September, 1974. The petitioner who is the wife of the detenu has challenged the two orders of detention Exts. P1 and P3 on various grounds. It is contended that the grounds stated in Exts. P2 and P4 are vague, they are irrelevant, there is no rationale or proximate connection between the incidents mentioned and the conclusions expressed to have been arrived at by the detaining authorities, the grounds stated did not factually exist and are not supported by any materials and that the orders were passed without bona fides. The petitioner has also put forward a plea that the impugned orders of detention were made mala fide. The validity of Ordinance 11 of 1974 was also questioned. The provision in S.16A introduced by the Ordinance was attacked as discriminatory and violative of Art.14 of the Constitution.

(3.) This petition was elaborately argued on the above points on the 6th, 7th and 8th of this month but the arguments of counsel for the petitioner were not closed and at the request of counsel the case was adjourned to 18-11-1974. On that day the case could not be heard and the arguments were continued on the 19th, 20th and the 2lst. In the meantime on the 16th November, .1974 the President of India, acting under Art.359 of the Constitution, issued an order in these terms: -