1967 (3) TMI 106 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Ultra vires of Rule 30(1)(b) of the Defence of India Rules, 1962.
2. Right to make a representation under Rule 23 of the Defence of India (Delhi Detenues) Rules, 1964.
3. Breach of Section 44 of the Defence of India Act.
4. Mala fide exercise of power.
5. Judicial or quasi-judicial nature of the review under Rule 30A(9).

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Ultra vires of Rule 30(1)(b) of the Defence of India Rules, 1962:
The petitioner challenged his detention under Rule 30(1)(b) on the grounds that it was ultra vires Section 3(2)(15)(i) of the Defence of India Act. However, this contention was not elaborated upon in the judgment, and the primary focus was on the procedural aspects of the detention and review process.

2. Right to Make a Representation Under Rule 23 of the Defence of India (Delhi Detenues) Rules, 1964:
The petitioner argued that Rule 23 provided him with the right to make a representation and that this right was disregarded. The Court noted that the petitioner had made several representations and addressed letters to the Home Ministry, which were considered by the Central Government. However, the Court found that the procedural safeguards were not fully complied with, especially in terms of providing the petitioner an opportunity to correct or contradict the evidence against him.

3. Breach of Section 44 of the Defence of India Act:
The petitioner contended that the detention order was in breach of Section 44, which requires the Government to determine whether detention is the minimum action necessary. The Court held that the decision to continue detention must be based on an objective standard, considering the facts and circumstances at the time of review, not merely the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority.

4. Mala Fide Exercise of Power:
The petitioner claimed that the detention order was mala fide and motivated by punitive rather than preventive considerations. The Court did not find sufficient evidence to support this claim but emphasized the need for procedural fairness and compliance with the principles of natural justice.

5. Judicial or Quasi-Judicial Nature of the Review Under Rule 30A(9):
The Court extensively discussed whether the function of review under Rule 30A(9) is judicial or quasi-judicial. It concluded that the review function is quasi-judicial, requiring the Government to act judicially by considering relevant materials and providing the detainee an opportunity to present his case. The Court cited several precedents to support this distinction and emphasized that the decision to continue detention must be based on objective facts and circumstances.

Conclusion:
The Court found that the continuation of the petitioner's detention was illegal due to non-compliance with the principles of natural justice. The petitioner was not given an opportunity to correct or contradict the evidence against him, and the decision to continue his detention was not based on an objective assessment of relevant materials. Consequently, the order dated December 2, 1966, was quashed, and the petitioner was directed to be set free forthwith. The petition was allowed.