NIHARENDDU DUTTA MAZUMDAR Vs. AEPORTER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are two sets of proceedings in which rules have been issued by this Court upon the respective opposite parties to show cause why they should not be committed for contempt of Court. In the second matter, namely, that of Shibnath Banerjee, the rule also calls upon the opposite parties to show cause why Shibnath Banerjee should not be set at liberty. The two rules arise out of the same set of circumstances which are as follows: (1) Niharendu Dutta Mazumdar, (2) Shibnath Banerjee, (3) Bejoy Singh Nahar, (4) Debabrata Roy, (5) Narendra Nath Sen Gupta, (6) Birendra Ganguly, (7) Pratul Chandra Ganguly, (8) Nanigopal Mazumdar and (9) Sasanka Sekhar Sanyal who I will refer to hereafter as the detenus were held in detention under Rule 26, Defence of India Rules. On 22 April, 1943 the Federal Court declared Rule 26 to be invalid having regard to the wording of the section of the Defence of India Act under which the rule was made. A day or two after 22 April, 1943 the said detenus obtained a rule from Sen J. under Section 491, Criminal P. C, and on 7 May 1943 these rules came on for hearing before a Bench of this Court consisting of Mitter, Khundkar and Sen JJ. That hearing lasted until 31 May 1943. At a date before the hearing came on, the Government of India had amended the section of the Defence of India Act under which Rule 26 was made, in such a way as purported to validate Rule 26 as from the date that it was made.

(2.) On 31 May 1943 an order was made by the Court that the Chief Secretary to the Government of Bengal, Mr. J. R. Blair should produce all the nine detenus before the Court on 3 June 1943, when judgment would be given. It was represented to the Court that Sasanka Sekhar Sanyal was ill and the Court directed that he should only be produced if medical opinion was that he was fit to be produced. Another of the detenus, Birendra Ganguly was in a distant place where it was impossible to produce him in time and the Court apparently dispensed with his production. However the remainder of the detenus were produced in Court on 3 June 1943 when judgment was given. Mitter J. delivered judgmeet first holding that all the detentions were illegal and that the rules should be made absolute. Khundkar J. delivered judgment next holding that the detentions were legal and that the rules should be discharged. Sen J. began delivering judgment at about 2-40 P.M. and finished somewhere just before 3-30 P.M. agreeing, in substance, with Mitter J. The final order of the Court was in accordance with the judgment of the majority that the said detenus should be released. The detenus had been brought to Court under an armed jail guard, and a strong force of police was stationed both inside the Court room, in the Court building outside the Court room and also outside the Court building to prevent any demonstration or disturbance of the peace.

(3.) Before the order for the release of the detenus was made, there was the armed jail guard standing near them and, of course, there were many policemen in uniform and doubtless others not in uniform in the Court. Mitter J. when he made the order of release specifically said "let the police clear off" and thereupon the armed guards and a number of policemen left the Court room. There does not appear to have been any further application made for any of the other policemen, who may have been in the Court room, to go away although Mr. Gupta, counsel for the detenus, stated to the Court that he did not know whether, having regard to the way things were going on, he would not again move the Court for another habeas corpus order or a rule for contempt of Court. It then appears that the Judges left the Court room and adjourned for the day. They did not come back to Court. Meanwhile, inside the Court room, the detenus talked with their friends and relatives and apparently some of them had tea which had been brought there. Mr. Niharendu Dutt Mazumdar, one of the detenus, during this time got up from his seat in the Court room, walked to the door and went through it into the corridor outside. There were a number of people in the corridor outside. Mr. Dutt Mazumdar made his way a matter of a few yards or so along the corridor and was then spoken to by Inspector Syed Hasan, who certainly got hold of one of his arms, if not two. Mr. Dutt Mazumdar said to the Inspector "what do you mean" and the Inspector said "I arrest you", whereupon Mr. Mazumdar asked if there was any order. Mr. J. C. Gupta, counsel for Mr. Dutt Mazumdar, by this time got to the place and heard the Inspector say "never mind about it" or "it does not matter" or some similar words to that effect. Mr. Gupta protested against Mr. Dutt Mazumdar being handled by the Inspector, thereupon the Inspector, according to Mr. Gupta, handed Mr. Dutt Mazumdar over to two or three Sergeants who were present, who took him forcibly, Mr. Gupta says, to the Inspector's room, which was close by. Mr. Dutt Mazumdar, according to Mr. Gupta, asked to be taken before the Judges, but this was not done although some counsel not engaged in the case apparently saw Mitter J. in his Chambers and told him what had happened, where upon Mitter J. said that he was functus officio and that that must be a matter for an-other application. No such application was made on that day. Mr. J.C. Gupta also proceeded to Mitter J. and on hearing what Mitter J. said to the other Barrister left Mitter J.'s Chambers. At this point of time Mr. Janvrin, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Calcutta, who is of the Special Branch and in charge of the police who were employed in connexion with this matter at the Court on that day, had arrived on the scene in the corridor. Mr. J. C. Gupta protested to Mr. Janvrin against the manner in which the police had handled Mr. Dutt Mazumdar.