1970 (7) TMI 79 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of detention prior to the order of detention
2. Disclosure of grounds of detention
3. Legal implications of detention for security reasons

Detailed Analysis:

1. The petitioner filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus, claiming that he was arrested before the warrant for his detention was issued, and the grounds of his detention were not communicated to him for a significant period. The petitioner alleged torture and forced signatures on blank paper. The petitioner's detention was challenged as illegal from its inception, leading to a request for release.

2. The respondent stated that the petitioner was detained in accordance with the order dated September 10, 1968, and the grounds of detention were not disclosed due to public interest concerns. The order was explained to the petitioner in Urdu, and he acknowledged understanding it by affixing his signature. The respondent clarified a typing error regarding the date of communication of grounds of detention.

3. The court examined the original records and confirmed that the order of detention was explained to the petitioner promptly after issuance. The court highlighted the provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Preventive Detention Act, emphasizing the priority of state security over individual liberty in cases of activities prejudicial to state security. The court underscored the importance of postponing individual rights in crisis situations for the greater good of the state.

4. Regarding the argument that the petitioner's arrest preceded the order of detention, the court explained that in habeas corpus proceedings, the legality of detention is assessed at the date of the hearing. If the detention is lawful at the time of the hearing, a writ of habeas corpus cannot be granted, irrespective of past events.

5. The court refrained from commenting on the impact of the petitioner's withdrawal of a previous petition. Ultimately, the court concluded that the petitioner's detention was not contrary to established legal procedures and could not be deemed illegal, leading to the dismissal of the petition for a writ of habeas corpus.