BHULLU ALIAS JAHOOR Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE KANPUR NAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by Bhullu alias Jahoor against an order of detention dated 19-5-1987 passed by the District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar under section 3 (2) of the National Security Act.

(2.) ACCORDING to the grounds of detention, which were served along with the detention order, the petitioner on 4-5-1987 at about 10 p. m. was sitting in his shop situate in Mohalla Ludhaura, Police Station Colonelganj, Kanpur City in front of a mosque. Some Muslims after making prayer in the mosque were standing there. One Mahesh and Munna, abusing and quarrelling with each other, reached there. At that time the petitioner asked both those persons as to why they were fighting on which Mahesh, after abusing the petitioner, said as to why he was interfering with them. The petitioner then started inciting the Muslims who were assembled there and asked them that the Hindus were qafirs and during Ramzan they caused interference in their Namaz and " Travi " and they, by making a temple, had taken possession over Babri Mosque as well. As a result of the said incitation the Muslims started pelting stones on Hindus, who were present there, and also on the houses belonging to Hindus. The petitioner, along with his companions, by sprinkling kerosene set fire to a taxi No. UTI 6176, belonging to Munna Lal, which was parked in front of Shanker Ji Temple. Rioting then took place between Muslims and Hindus which resulted in pelting stones, arson, firing and destruction of properties. The residents of the locality became terrorised and rushed to their houses and closed the doors. Peace-loving people started running hither and thither. The peace of the community was distrubed. Reports of the said incidents were lodged by Rajjan Lal and Sub- Inspector Jatindra Kumar Rastogi, on which cases were registered. It was further stated that the petitioner went underground and till 10-5-1987 he kept inciting the Muslims which caused an apprehension that in future as well he will indulge himself in the activities which will disturb public peace. The petitioner surrendered in Court on 11-5-1987.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Vijai Narain Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1984 SC 1334 and has urged that our Constitution did not give a carta blanche to any organ of the State to be the sole arbiter in the matter of the preventive detention and that the preventive detention was not beyond judicial scrutiny. THEre could be no dispute with regard to the said principle. It is well established that adequacy or sufficiency of materials is not a good ground of challenge. With regard to the same the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijai Narain Singh (supra) has observed that adequacy or sufficiency is not a ground of challenge. In Fazal Ghoshi v. State of U. P., AIR 1987 SC 1887 as well it was observed that in a matter of preventive detention the satisfaction of the District Magistrate was subjective in nature and that sufficiency of material could not be looked into by the Court. In our opinion, when there was existence of material against the petitioner that he had incited the communal feelings amongst the Muslims which resulted in rioting and also when he along with other Muslims at that time had set fire to a taxi belonging to a Hindu, this Court cannot put itself in the place of the District Magistrate and judge as to whether the said material was or was not sufficient to pass the detention order.