1965 (10) TMI 89 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Competence of writ petitions in light of the Presidential Order.
2. Validity of Rule 30(1)(b) of the Defence of India Rules.
3. Validity of the detention orders due to change in the place of detention.
4. Alleged mala fide intent behind the detention orders.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Competence of Writ Petitions in Light of the Presidential Order:
The preliminary objection raised by the Additional Solicitor-General argued that the writ petitions were incompetent due to the Presidential Order issued on November 3, 1962, which suspended the right to move any court for the enforcement of rights under Articles 14, 21, and 22 during the Proclamation of Emergency. The court held that the Presidential Order must be strictly construed in favor of citizens' fundamental rights. It emphasized that the Order only applies if the rights under Articles 14, 21, and 22 are deprived under the Defence of India Ordinance or any rule or order made thereunder. The court concluded that if the petitioner challenges the validity of the Ordinance, rule, or order on grounds other than those covered by Articles 14, 21, and 22, the Presidential Order does not apply. Therefore, the writ petitions were deemed competent.

2. Validity of Rule 30(1)(b) of the Defence of India Rules:
The petitioners contended that Rule 30(1)(b) was invalid as it contravened the constitutional rights of Members of Parliament. The court examined various constitutional provisions and concluded that the rights claimed by the petitioners were not constitutional rights in the strict sense, nor were they fundamental rights. The court referred to the privileges of Members of the House of Commons, noting that freedom from arrest under a detention order was not recognized as a privilege. It held that a Member of Parliament has no special status higher than that of an ordinary citizen concerning a valid order of detention. Therefore, Rule 30(1)(b) was deemed valid.

3. Validity of the Detention Orders Due to Change in the Place of Detention:
The petitioners argued that their detention was invalid as they were detained in the Central Jail, Cuddalore, instead of the Central Jail, Tiruchirapalli, as specified in the original orders. The court noted that the Government of Madras had issued a later order on December 30, 1964, modifying the place of detention for security reasons. This change was published in the Madras Government Gazette. Therefore, the court found no substance in the argument that the detention in the Central Jail, Cuddalore, was illegal.

4. Alleged Mala Fide Intent Behind the Detention Orders:
The petitioners alleged that the detention orders were passed mala fide to stifle their political activities and not for the reasons stated in the orders. They argued that the Chief Minister of Madras was influenced by the Union Home Minister's decision. The court examined statements from the Union Home Minister and affidavits from the Chief Minister and the Chief Secretary of Madras. It found that the Chief Minister had personally satisfied himself regarding the necessity of the detention orders. The court concluded that there was no justification for the assumption that the orders were passed without proper consideration or were influenced by the Union Home Minister. Therefore, the court dismissed the allegations of mala fide intent.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed both writ petitions, upholding the validity of Rule 30(1)(b) of the Defence of India Rules and the detention orders. The court found no merit in the arguments regarding the competence of the writ petitions, the validity of the detention orders due to the change in the place of detention, and the alleged mala fide intent behind the orders.