HARKISHAN SINGH SURJIT Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment would dispose of two petitions (Criminal Writ No. 4 of 1965 and criminal Original No. 44 (m) of 1965), which have been filed by Shri Harkishan singh Surjeet and Shri Bhim Singh Advocate respectively questioning the validity of the Punjab Detenus Rules, 1950. It is stated by Mr. Anand Swamp on behalf of both the petitioners that the matter involved in the two petitions is the same, and arguments have only been addressed in Criminal Writ No. 4 of 1965. It would con sequently be necessary to give facts only of that petition.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case in Criminal Writ No. 4 of 1965 are that the petitioner, who belongs to the Communist Party of India and claims to be a member of its highest body, was arrested under orders of the Government of Kerala dated the 29th December 1964 under Rule 30 (1) (b) of the Defence of India Rules and detained in the Central Jail, Viyyur. The petitioner at his request was transferred to a Punjab Jail by the Kerala Government with the consent of the Punjab government. On 24th March 1965 the Government of Kerala cancelled the order of detention of the petitioner and he was released from detention on 31st March 1965. On the same day the petitioner was served with an order of detention which had been made by the Punjab Government on 29th December 1964 regarding the detention of I the petitioner under Rule 300 (1) (b) of the Defence of India Rules. In that order it was stated that the petitioner was reported to be indulging in anti-national and pro-China activities which were prejudicial to the Defence of India and Civil Defence, and that the Governor of the Punjab was satisfied that with a view to preventing the petitioner from acting in a manner prejudicial to the defence of India and Civil Defence it was necessary to detain him. It was further directed in that order that in the matter relating to maintenance, discipline and the punishment of offences and breaches of discipline the petitioner would be governed by the Punjab Detenus Rules, 1950, as amended upto date. The petitioner was thereafter detained for some time in Rohtak jail but was later transferred to the Nabha Jail.

(3.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, while he was detained in Central Jail. Viyyur, under conditions given in Travancore Cochin Security Prisoners Order 1950 he was allowed to receive in jail all publications, books, newspapers and periodicals which were not proscribed or banned by the Government and was allowed a weekly interview. Another interview was also permitted if the petitioner did not write a letter. Furniture and clothes commensurate with the mode of living of the petitioner were placed at his disposal. Amenities in the nature of medical treatment and articles of toilet were also allowed to him. In Nabha Jail, however, the Superintendent of Jail refused to allow the petitioner any newspaper or periodical except a selected few provided in the rules. The petitioner claims that on account of the Punjab rules he has been deprived of opportunity to contribute articles to newspapers on art, literature, economics and history. There are also restrictions on interviews which, according to the petitioner, are more stringent. Furniture provided in the Punjab jails, it is stated, is scanty and the petitioner is not allowed to correspond with the other detenus. Restrictions have also been placed on the spending of money by the petitioner from his own pocket. The petitioner's stand is that the conditions, under which he is detained, are punitive. He accordingly, claims that Rules Nos. 6 to 9, 13, 14, 16 to 18, 21, 26, 29 to 31, 37, 44, 44a, 46 and 49 of the Punjab Detenus Rules be struck down as illegal and ultra vires.