MADHUSUDAN TUKARAM KULKARNI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed under Section 491 of the Criminal Procedure Code and Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge an order of detention passed against the petitioner on 25th November 1964, under Rule 30 (1) (b) of the Defence of India Rules. The order was passed by the District Magistrate of Poona, who stated therein that he was satisfied that it was necessary to detain the petitioner with a view to preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the defence of India, public safety and the maintenance of public order. The detention order was confirmed by the Government of Maharashtra on the recommendation of the reviewing authority.

(2.) IN Ms petition the petitioner stated that he had participated in the movement tor India's freedom, that he was sentenced for a term of two and half years for taking part in the Satyagraha movement in 1932, that he was for some days an active member of the Hindu Maha Sabha in Poona City, and that he is at present an ordinary member and a sympathiser of that body. The petitioner further stated that he has been conducting Hindi language classes for more than 25 years and has written and published several books in Hindi. According to him, the reason why he was detained was that he attended two functions which were held in Poona on 12th and 15th Nov. 1964. The function which was held on 12th November 1964, was a Satyanarayana Puja performed for religious thank giving on the occasions of the release of Gopal Godse and Karkare, who were convicts in the 'gandhi murder trial', the function which was held on 15th November 1964, was a Shradha ceremony performed on the occasion of the death anniversary of Natliuram Godse who was sentenced to death in the said trial and was executed. The petitioner stated that he merely attended these functions and did not take part therein in any other way. The petitioner affirmed that he was not engaged in any prejudicial activity. He referred in. the petition to three criminal applications filed by persons who had participated in the Satyanarayan puja and whose detention orders were-set aside by this Court. The petitioner claimed that on the same grounds the detention order passed against him should also be set aside. According to the petitioner, the order passed against him was mala fide, that it was punitive and not preventive and that the District Magistrate "had no material before him which could indicate, much less satisfy him, that it was necessary that the petitioner should be arrested and be detained with a view to preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the defence of India, public safety and the maintenance of public order. "

(3.) THE main affidavit in reply to the petition was filed by the District Magistrate of: Poona. He denied that the petitioner merely attended the two functions mentioned above, and stated that the petitioner was "one of the active participants" in both the functions. The District Magistrate, however, did not say in what manner, according to his information, the petitioner actively participated in the two functions. In denying the petitioner's claim that he was not involved in any prejudicial activity the. District Magistrate stated that the functions of 12th and 15th November 1964, evoked considerable wrath among all sections of people in the State of Maharashtra and outside, as speeches were made in the said functions eulogising Nathuram Godse and Apte, the assassins of Mahatma Gandhi. It was further stated in this affidavit "indignant articles appeared in many of the leading newspapers condemning the actions and the speeches of these who had arranged and who delivered speeches at the said functions of November 12th and 15th. Several public meetings were held to condemn the attempts to glorify Nathuram Godse and Apte,. the assassins of Mahatma Gandhi, as martyrs. The whole atmosphere of Poona was surcharged with public wrath and a situation of extreme public tension was created. There was a grave danger of a repetition of the disturbances and riots that followed the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi in 1948. I received reports and other material relating to these and. other activities of the petitioner and others and on a careful examination of the whole material that was thus placed before me, I was satisfied that it was necessaiy to detain the petitioner". The District Magistrate denied that there was no material which could satisfy him that it was necessary to detain the petitioner with a. view to preventing him from acting in a prejudicial manner.