9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved
1. Validity of the grounds for detention under Section 7 of the Preventive Detention Act. 2. Compliance with the requirements of Section 3(3) of the Preventive Detention Act. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis 1. Validity of the Grounds for Detention under Section 7 of the Preventive Detention Act The petitioners argued that the grounds for their detention were vague, as provided under Section 7 of the Act. The communication sent to the petitioners stated: "During the monsoon season in the year 1955, you held secret meetings of Adivasis in Umbergaon, Dhanu, Palghar, and Jawhar Talukas of Thana District at which you incited and instigated them to have recourse to intimidation, violence, and arson in order to prevent the laborers from outside villages hired by landlords from working for landlords." The petitioners contended that no specific particulars were given regarding the time and place of these secret meetings, making it difficult to refute the allegations. However, the communication did include dates of several incidents, implying that the meetings occurred around those dates. The court found the communication sufficiently definite to apprise the petitioners of the charges against them and enable them to provide an explanation. This view was consistent with the judgment of Chagla, C.J. in the High Court of Bombay under Article 226. Consequently, the complaint that the grounds were vague was dismissed. 2. Compliance with the Requirements of Section 3(3) of the Preventive Detention Act The petitioners contended that the District Magistrate did not comply with Section 3(3) of the Act, which requires that the grounds for detention be sent to the State Government along with the report. The District Magistrate sent the report on 28th January 1956, but the grounds were formulated on 30th January 1956 and communicated to the petitioners on 31st January 1956. These grounds were sent to the State Government only on 6th February 1956, after the State Government had already approved the detention order on 3rd February 1956. The petitioners argued that this sequence violated the statutory procedure, rendering the detention illegal. The court examined the relevant sections of the Act. Section 3(3) requires that the authority making the detention order report the fact to the State Government "forthwith" along with the grounds for the order. The court interpreted "grounds" to include any information or material on which the order was based, as per the Oxford Concise Dictionary's definition of "ground" as 'Base, foundation, motive, valid reason'. The court noted that the purpose of Section 3(3) is to ensure that the State Government can decide whether to approve the order based on the materials provided by the District Magistrate. Section 7, on the other hand, requires the grounds to be communicated to the detenu to enable them to make a representation against the order. The court concluded that the grounds mentioned in Section 3(3) need not be identical to those in Section 7. The materials sent to the State Government under Section 3(3) could include confidential information not disclosed to the detenu under Section 7. The court also pointed out that the report to the State Government is a less formal, inter-departmental communication, whereas the communication to the detenu is a formal document. The court found that the District Magistrate had complied with Section 3(3) by sending the materials on which the detention order was based, even though the formal grounds were sent later. The failure to send the exact grounds formulated on 30th January 1956 along with the initial report did not constitute a breach of Section 3(3). Conclusion Both contentions of the petitioners were dismissed. The grounds for detention were found to be sufficiently definite, and the requirements of Section 3(3) were deemed to have been complied with. The applications for habeas corpus were therefore dismissed.
|
