C KRISHNA REDDY Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition filed for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus directing the respondents to release the detenus. Various grounds have been urged in this petition. The detenus are (1) C. Krishna Reddy and (2) P. Chennaiah. In support of the petition C. Bhanumathi, the wife of the 1st detenu C. Krishna Reddy filed an affidavit wherein it is stated that the detenus belonged to the lower cadre of the Andhra Pradesh State Police Force. The first detenu C. Krishna Reddy is a Sub-Inspector while the second detenu P. Chennaiah is a Head Constable. The lower cadre of the police department was very much exploited and the service conditions virtually deprived them of all human rights. The subordinate officers were asked to work round the clock without any allowance for their food and tiffin being paid. They had to work over-time as slaves under their superior gazetted officers. They were also asked to do all menial and odd jobs not connected with their official work. Their representation was snubbed under the colour of discipline. It was further stated that since individual representations to relieve them of their grievances were not heeded, the Constables. Head-constables and Sub-Inspectors of Police formed into Andhra Pradesh Police Non-Gazetted Officer, Association. The 1st detenu C. Krishna Reddy was elected as President while the 2nd detenu P. Chenniah was elected as its Secretary. They sought for recognition of their Association from the Government and also for redressal of their grievances. As a result of this representation, the Government in their G.O.Rt. 2576/GA (General-A Dept.) dt. 24-6-1981 constituted a Committee to resolve their problems. The second respondent promised to recognise the said Association and ventilate their grievances. It is unnecessary for us to refer to the other facts stated in the affidavit and it will suffice to note that the Association made representations to the Chief Minister and other higher authorities. Consequently, the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad, the 1st respondent, got up a false case against the 2nd detenu (Crime No. 170/81 dt. 24-8-1981 of the Police Station, Meer Chowk) alleging that he and some others demonstrated before his office. The said case was registered under Section 3 of the Indian Police (Incitement of Disaffection) Act of 1922. The 1st detenu as the President of the Association brought to the notice of the Commissioner of Police on 5-10-81 that the problem required immediate solution, that all oppressive actions taken against the members should be withdrawn immediately and that the Association, which represents the substantial majority in the Department (N.G.Os) has to be recognised.

(2.) It is further stated that the detenus were contacting the members of the Association so that they might consider the matter. The 1st respondent (Commissioner of Police) swooped down upon the detenus with the aid of Central Reserve Police and arrested the detenus under Section 151 Cr.P.C. and Section 4 of the Police Force (Restriction of Rights) Act of 1966 and Section 3 of the Police (Incitement to Disaffection) Act of 1922. The detenus along with other office bearers were arrested on 8-10-81 and taken away and detained. According to the deponent, the detenus have been detained in the Rajahmundry Central Jail, and their detention is illegal, null and void.

(3.) The detenus were arrested and detained under the National Security Act, 1980. The arrest and detention of the detenus were not made by the 1st respondent during the subsistence of any period specified in S. 3(3) of the National Security Act. It was categorically cally stated that the 1st respondent did not serve on the detenus the grounds on which the order of detention has been made within 5 days from the date of detention; nor he recorded any reasons for exception. Hence the proceedings are null and void contrary to S. 8 of the Act. The 2nd respondent also failed to report the fact to the Central Government within 7 days from the date of the order of detention or approval thereof. The detention is beyond the scope of Section 3 of the National Security Act and has no nexus to the security of the State or for maintenance of public order and maintenance of essential supplies.