RAM MANOHAR LOHIA Vs. SUPDT CENTRAL PRISON FATEHGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application by Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia for a writ of 'habeas corpus'. He is being prosecuted on two charges, each of committing an offence under Section 3, U. P. Special Powers act, 14 of 1932. He contends that the Act, and particularly Section 3 of it, stands repealed under article 13 of the Constitution on account of its being inconsistent with the provisions of Article 19.

(2.) THE applicant is the General Secretary of the Praja Socialist Party of India. The Government of Uttar Pradesh has increased irrigation rates for water supplied from canals to cultivators and the Praja Socialist Party of Uttar Pradesh is carrying on an agitation against the increase on the ground that it places an unbearable burden upon the cultivators who are adversely affected by the progressive fall in prices of foodgrains. The applicant visited Farrukhabad in connection with the agitation and addressed two public meetings on 4-7-'54, one at Kaimganj at 4 p. m. and the other at Farrukhabad at 8-30 p. m. In the speeches he incited cultivators not to pay "the enhanced irrigation rates" to Government. He also severely criticised the state Government; but we are not concerned with that criticism as it does not form the basis of the charges which he has to answer at the trial. The Station Officer, Kaimganj, followed him from Kaimganj to Farrukhabad and lodged a report against him for the offence under Section 3, U. P. Special Powers Act, at police station, farrukhabad, and asked the Station Officer, Farrukhabad, in writing to arrest him. Consequently the Station Officer , Farrukhabad, arrested the applicant the same day at 10 p. m. and informed him of the reason for the arrest and showed him the written authority. Just then there arrived Sri. A. H. Drummond, City Magistrate of Farrukhabad and Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Kaimganj; the Station Officer produced the applicant before the City Magistrate there and then and the City magistrate granted a remand for two days. The applicant was then sent to the District Jail. The Station Officer after investigation submitted a charge-sheet against the applicant for two offences, each of Section 3, for making the two speeches in the Court of Sri. P. R. Gupta, a judicial Officer, where the case is pending. The Magistrate went to the Jail on 6-7-'54 to try the applicant who protested against his trial within the jail premises. The Magistrate rejected the protest. Then the applicant made an application for referring the case to the High Court under section 432, Criminal P. C. , and that application also was rejected. Thereupon the applicant applied for an adjournment of the case on the ground that he wanted to move this Court for transfer of the case and the Magistrate adjourned it to 7-8-'54. Though the offence of Section 3 is bailable, the applicant has not applied for bail. He filed the present application on 9-7-1954.

(3.) THE only grounds urged by the applicant are that the Act is 'ultra vires' because it contravenes article 19 of the Constitution and that his arrest and detention are illegal and contrary to Article 21 of the Constitution. Two counter-affidavits have been filed in reply to the application, one by the Assistant Jailor of the Central prison where the applicant is being confined at present and the other by the Station Officer of police station, Farrukhabad. The Assistant Jailor affirms that the applicant has been arrested for the offences of Section 3 of the Act, that he was produced before the Court inside the jail on 6-7-54, that the case was adjourned to 19-7-1954, and that he is being confined in the jail under the orders of the Judicial Officer. The Station Officer, police station farrukhabad, in his counter-affidavit mentions the circumstances in which the applicant was arrested and affirms that he is being confined as an under-trial on charges of Section 3 of the act.