MAKKU Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We heard analogously three habeas corpus petitions for a single and singular reason. The common question of constitutional importance to be decided in all three cases is of violation by the Detaining Authority of the provisions of S.8(2) of the National Security Act, for short, the "Act" and for that matter, interpretation of that provision in the context of Cls. (4), (5) and (6) of Art.22 of the Constitution.

(2.) All the three petitioners are detained in the Central Jail, Gwalior, under orders passed by the same Detaining Authority, namely, the District Magistrate, Gwalior. Against petitioner Makku alias Daulatsingh, (petitioner in Misc. Petition No. 37 of 1989), order was passed on 7-11-1988, while in the case of the other two petitioners, namely, Parsoo alias Paras Ram (Misc. Petition No. 259 of 1989) and Makhan (Misc. Petition No. 441 of 1989), orders were passed respectively on 15-10-1988 and 11-1-1989. In all cases, the petitioners are detained with the object of restraining them from indulging in activities prejudicial to public order; but on different grounds. Each of the petitioners was produced before the Advisory Board, but the Board having maintained their detention ordered by the District Magistrate, the State Government has passed orders confirming the detention for the maximum period of twelve months, contemplated under the Act.

(3.) On three grounds detention order is passed against petitioner Makku. The names of Ramesh Jain and Ajai Patni figure respectively in Ground Nos. 1 and 2 admittedly, the statements of those two witnesses, recorded by the Detaining Authority have not been furnished to the detenu at any time. In the return on the other hand not only this fact is disclosed for the first time, but justification for doing so is stated and that is based on S.8(2) of the Act. The Detaining Authority has stated that he had "considered proper in public interest", for reasons recorded by him in writing in the file that copies of statements of those two witnesses be not supplied to the detenu in terms of the provisions of S.8(2) of the Act. The fact to be noted, importantly however, is also that this view was taken despite the fact that with the "grounds", the detenu was supplied copy of the F.I.R. lodged by the said Ramesh Jain in respect of the incident concerning ground No. 1 and similarly, also copy of F.I.R. lodged by the said Ajai Patni in respect of the incident mentioned in ground No. 2. Copies of those are filed as annexures R/3(b) and 3(c) of the return. As per annexure R/5 of the return, it appears that in making report as contemplated under S.3(4) of the Act to the State Government, the Detaining Authority had stated that power under S.8(2) of the Act was invoked to protect the life and property of witnesses Ramesh Jain and Ajai Patni.