SADAT JAHAN Vs. STATE OF HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS case came on for hearing before the Division Bench and an urgent application for the grant of interim relief was filed on behalf of the petitioner praying that she might be released on bail and not allowed to continue to be kept in jail because of the bad condition of her health. This application was argued by the Counsel for the respective parties and an order was passed by a bench of this Court on 19-9-1952 directing the release of the petitioner on bail on condition that she furnished security to the extent of Rs. 10,000/- and two sureties of Rs. 5,000/ -. There were other conditions also imposed on the petitioner and she is, therefore, on bail now. The petition filed by her for the issue of a writ of Habeas Corpus has now come up for hearing. We heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the Government advocate.

(2.) THE petitioner was arrested on 9-9-1952. An order of detention under the Preventive Detention Act was passed on 7th September 1952 and the same was served on her on 9-9-1952 and the grounds of detention were served on 15-9-1952.

(3.) ANALYSING the grounds of detention, the grounds state that she is the Editor of an Urdu Weekly called 'khatoon' and the lady Editor of -another daily called 'iqdam'. The learned Counsel for the petitioner admits that his client is the Editor of the Urdu Weekly 'khatoon' while he denied that she was the editor of the daily 'iqdam'. He submitted that she was only the managing Editor of the paper (Iqdam) and the editor was her husband. We called upon the Government advocate to make enquiries and inform us as to who it was that made the necessary declaration as required by the Press Act as being the editor of the paper. This step we took in order to satisfy ourselves as to whether the petitioned; was really a joint editor of the paper called 'iqdam' because the articles which the petitioner is said to have written and with regard to which objection was taken were all written in the paper called 'iqdam' and not in 'khatoon' of which she is admittedly the editor. The Government Advocate was not able to satisfy us as to whether she had made the required declaration and under the circumstances it could not be said that she was the editor and as such could be held responsible under the law for the alleged objectionable articles.