BHARAT Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE GWALIOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two questions of constitutional import, involving interpretation of Arts.22 and 141, have surfaced in these two habeas corpus applications preferred from Jail. Indeed, another question of equal importance, concerning interpretation of S.12(1) of the National Security Act, 1980 (for short, 'the Act'), has also fallen for our determination in these two cases. We, therefore, heard these two cases analogously and we propose to deal with the three common questions while disposing of the cases by this common judgment.

(2.) First, the skeletal facts necessary to dispose of the controversy which albeit is limited admittedly to the questions of law just alluded. Petitioner Bharat has been detained on the strength of an order passed under S.3 of the Act on 18-9-84 (Annexure R/1) by the District Magistrate, Gwalior, for interdicting his activities which, in his opinion, were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The order was bottomed on two grounds and the 'Grounds' bore the date 22-9-84. Petitioner Daulat Singh suffers detention on the strength of a similar order passed by the same detaining authority on 29-3-84 (Annexure -R/1) and indeed, for achieving the same objective, namely, maintenance of public order. The order, in this case, was also passed on two grounds. But, in neither case, it is necessary to refer to the contents of the 'Grounds' inasmuch as the challenge, as alluded, is founded on the breach of the Constitutional mandate of Art.22(5). Suffice it to say that in either case, the grounds narrated certain antisocial and criminal activities of the detenus, such as intimidation, extortion and also terrorising people by throwing hand-bomb.

(3.) The cases of the two detenus were referred separately for the opinion of the Advisory Board and the detenus were also produced before the Board. The case of petitioner Bharat was considered by the Board on 20-10-84, on which date, the Board submitted its 'Report' and 'opinion', holding that there was sufficient cause for detention of Bharat under the Act. Petitioner Daulat Singh's case was considered by the same Board on 8-5-85, on which date, a similar 'Report' and 'opinion' to the same effect was tendered by the Board. Thereafter, the State Government confirmed the order of detention in both cases and continued their detentions for 12 months, the maximum period envisaged under the Act. On 22-4-85, on petitions received from Jail in both cases, this Court directed notices to be issued to the State and on the prayer of the Deputy Government Advocate, allowed fifteen days' time to State to file returns in both cases. The same have since been filed.