1956 (11) TMI 44 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
- Application for a writ of habeas corpus against the State of Jammu and Kashmir under the Preventive Detention Act
- Detention based on alleged illicit smuggling of essential goods
- Interpretation of essential commodities under the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Ordinance
- Legal principles regarding the validity of detention orders based on multiple grounds

Analysis:
1. The petitioner filed an application under article 32 seeking a writ of habeas corpus against the State of Jammu and Kashmir for his detention under the Preventive Detention Act. The petitioner was initially detained by the District Magistrate and later by the Government of Jammu and Kashmir based on the necessity to prevent him from acting prejudicially to the maintenance of essential supplies and services. The detention order cited the petitioner's involvement in smuggling essential goods to Pakistan, affecting the economic condition of the public adversely.

2. The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir had previously considered similar cases of detention for smuggling and held that Chiffon cloth was not an essential commodity under the Essential Supplies Ordinance. However, it was unclear whether zari fell under the same category. The petitioner's detention was upheld by the High Court due to the inclusion of mercury, which was deemed an essential commodity. The petitioner challenged the detention order based on the classification of goods as essential.

3. The Supreme Court analyzed previous cases to determine the validity of detention orders based on multiple grounds. Referring to Dr. Ram Krishan Bhardwaj's case, the Court emphasized the importance of providing specific and non-vague grounds for detention to enable fair representation. In Shibban Lal Saksena's case, it was established that if one ground for detention is found to be irrelevant, the entire order could be invalidated.

4. Applying these principles, the Court found that since two out of the three categories of goods mentioned in the detention order were not essential commodities, the entire order was deemed illegal. The lack of evidence to show that the smuggling of non-essential goods was inconsequential led to the quashing of the detention order. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition and ordered the immediate release of the detenue.