HOMI D. MISTRY Vs. SHREE NAFISUL HUSSAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff has filed this suit claiming damages from the defendants for wrongful arrest and detention. The plaintiff' says that at the relevant time when his arrest and detention took place he was the Deputy Editor of an English Weekly published in Bombay called 'Blitz'. Defendant No. 1 was at the relevant time the Speaker of the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly, Defendant No. 2 is the State of Uttar Pradesh. Defendant No. 3 is impleaded because he was at the relevant time Commissioner of Police for the Greater Bombay area, who it is alleged was allowed by defendant No. 4, the State of Bombay, to aid in the arrest and detention of the plaintiff'. According1 to the plaintiff on March 10, he heard through certain newspapers in Bombay that a senior inspector of Uttar Pradesh C.I.D. had left for Bombay with a warrant issued by defendant No. 1 as Speaker of the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly for the arrest of the plaintiff which warrant was duly issued pursuant to a resolution of the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly to enforce the presence of the plaintiff before the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly to answer a charge of contempt of defendant No. 1, the Speaker of the House, arising out of a certain publication of a certain newspaper item published in 'Blitz' on September 29, 1951, at a time when the plaintiff was acting as Editor of 'Blitz'. It is alleged that on reading the said report of the arrival of the C.I.D. Officer from Uttar Pradesh the plaintiff's solicitors addressed a letter to the Commissioner of Police pointing out that it was not open to him to execute or permit execution of the said warrant of arrest inasmuch as it was contended that the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly had no authority or jurisdiction to issue any warrant for execution outside the territorial jurisdiction of the State of Uttar Pradesh. The said solicitors also forwarded a duplicate of the said letter to the Chief Secretary of defendant No. 4, the State of Bombay, requesting him to see that the warrant is not executed against the plaintiff within the territory of defendant No. 4, namely the State of Bombay.

(2.) IT is alleged that an Officer of the Bombay Police, acting under the directions of defendant No. 3, executed the said warrant, by arresting the plaintiff at 5 a.m. on March 11, 1952. The plaintiff was removed to Lucknow via Delhi at 8 -30 a.m. in the custody of one S.A. Huq, a Police Officer of the State of Uttar Pradesh. He was taken to Lucknow via Delhi reaching Delhi at 12 -30 p.m. on March 12 and was taken from Delhi to Lucknow and at Lucknow he was detained in a room in the Carlton Hotel, Lucknow. It is said and alleged that from 5 a.m. on March 11, 1952, when the plaintiff was arrested till his release on March 18, 1952, in pursuance of a certain Order passed by the Supreme Court of India the plaintiff was illegally detained and falsely imprisoned by defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2 State, that that detention was carried out without the plaintiff having been produced before a Magistrate.

(3.) THE plaintiff contends that the protection of his personal liberty had been guaranteed by Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution and the entire procedure adopted by the House of Uttar Pradesh against the plaintiff was contrary to and in violation of his fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution of India. It is contended in the plaint that defendant No. 1 had no authority to issue a warrant for the arrest and production of any person outside the territorial limits of the State of Uttar Pradesh and that such action was in contravention of Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India and, therefore, without jurisdiction and without any legal authority. It is further contended that defendant No. 2 acted illegally, mala fide and without jurisdiction, that the plaintiff states that defendant No. 3 acted illegally, mala fide and without jurisdiction in directing his subordinates to execute the said warrant, that although the warrant was to produce the plaintiff before the House on March 19, defendant No. 3 acted hastily in executing the said warrant on March 11 and removing the plaintiff or allowing him to be removed from Bombay, and therefore, defendant No. 3 and defendant No. 4 State had acted illegally, mala fide and without jurisdiction in procuring the wrongful arrest of the plaintiff.