RAMADHIN SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this application for a writ of habeas corpus, Ramadhin Singh, seeks to impugn the validity of the detention order dated January 22, 1973 passed by the District Magistrate, Allahabad. The District Magistrate, Allahabad, passed the impugned order dated January 22, 1975 authorising the detention of the petitioner in the Central Jail, Naini, under the provisions of Section 3(1) (a) (ii), as he was satisfied that it was necessary to do in order to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the Maintenance of Pub lic order. Subsequently, the grounds for the detention of the peti tioner, as required by Section 8 of the Act were served upon the peti tioner in Naini Jail on January 26, 1975. This petition was heard along with a similar writ petition No. 1227 of 1975, filed by Brijesh Kumar. The petitioners in both the cases were initially arrested on January 17, 1975 in connection with a criminal case, and while they were still in jail, orders dated January 22, 1975 directing their detention under the provisions of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act were passed and the grounds for detention were served upon them on January 26, 1975. Several of the points raised in this petition were identical to those raised in the petition filed by Brijesh Kumar and with the consent of parties they have been dealt with in the judgment in Brijesh Ku mar's case judgment which is also being delivered today. It is ac cordingly not necessary for us to discuss those arguments here. The grounds for the detention served upon the petitioner show that Dis trict Magistrate's satisfaction that it was necessary to detain the pe titioner was arrived at on grounds which were different from the grounds communicated to Brijesh Kumar. Petitioner's argument is that the grounds communicated to him in this case are also vague and are not relevant for the purposes of determining whether he was likely to act in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. We accordingly proceed to consider this argument. It is now well settled that the satisfaction of the District Magis trate that it is necessary to detain a person so as to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order is his subjective satisfaction. If the satisfaction has been arrived at on a number of grounds and even if one of those grounds is found to be either vague and irrelevant this Court will have to strike down the detention order inasmuch as it will not be possible to predicate that the detaining authority would necessarily have passed the detention order on the remaining grounds.

(2.) A copy of the grounds for petitioner's detention has been filed as Annexure 2 to the counter-affidavit of Sri R.D. Sonkar, District Ma gistrate, Allahabad. These grounds show that the District Magistrate formed the necessary satisfaction on account of what took place in five different public and student meetings on March 22, 1974, April 10, 1974, May 13, 1974, September 28, 1974 and January 17, 1975. The first ground mentioned in the grounds of detention trans lated into English reads thus: -

(3.) WE thus find that according to the facts mentioned in the first ground of detention, there was no material to indicate that there was any call by the petitioner for violence, much less violence on a large scale so as to affect the maintenance of public order. The threat to get the University closed might possibly have annoyed the peace loving students, but there was nothing in it to show that fear of per sonal safety would be installed in their mind and that they would be afraid to pursue their studies in the University. The first ground communicated to the petitioner, therefore, has no relevance to the question of maintenance of public order and is also vague. The detention under the provision of Section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, based on such a ground cannot be sustained. The petition therefore succeeds and is allowed. The respon dents are directed to release the petitioner from their custody forth with subject to his complying with the necessary formalities for being released on bail in crime case No. 63/75 under Section 188, I.P.C. and 7, Crl. Law Amendment.