1956 (9) TMI 56 - SC - Indian Laws

Forthwith within the meaning of section 3(3) of the Preventive Detention Act IV of 1950 - Preventive Detention - Delay - Held that - It is obvious that the Commissioner was not sleeping over the orders which he had passed or lounging supinely over them. The delay such as it is due, to causes not of his making, but to causes to which the activities of the petitioners very largely contributed. We have no hesitation in accepting the affidavit, and we bold that the delay in sending the report could not have been avoided by the Commissioner and that when they were sent by him, they were sent forthwith within the meaning of section 3(3) of the Act. What a person is likely to do in future can only be a matter of inference from various circumstances, and his past record will be valuable, and often the only, record on which it could be made. It was finally contended that what was alleged against the petitioners was only that they advocated hartal, and that was not a ground for making an order of detention. But the charge in these cases was that the petitioners instigated hartal bringing about a complete stoppage of work, business and transport with a view to promote lawlessness and disorder, and that is a ground on which an order could be made under section 3(2). All the contentions urged by the petitioners therefore fail, and these petitions must be dismissed

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of Detention Orders under Preventive Detention Act.
2. Interpretation of "forthwith" under Section 3(3) of the Act.
3. Delay in Reporting to State Government.
4. Jurisdictional Validity of Transfer of Detention Location.
5. Adequacy of Grounds for Detention.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of Detention Orders under Preventive Detention Act:
The petitions were filed under Article 32 of the Constitution for writs in the nature of habeas corpus. The Commissioner of Police, Bombay, passed orders under Section 3(2) of the Preventive Detention Act IV of 1950, directing the detention of the petitioners on 13-1-1956. The grounds for the orders were formulated on 19-1-1956 and communicated to the petitioners the next day. The Commissioner reported the fact and grounds of the order to the State Government on 21-1-1956, which approved the same on 23-1-1956.

2. Interpretation of "forthwith" under Section 3(3) of the Act:
The primary contention was whether the Commissioner acted "forthwith" as required by Section 3(3) of the Act. The Court noted that the term "forthwith" is of elastic import and should receive a liberal or reasonable construction, considering the nature of the act and the circumstances of the case. The Court cited various precedents, both American and English, to illustrate that "forthwith" does not necessarily mean immediately but within a reasonable time, considering the circumstances.

3. Delay in Reporting to State Government:
The Court examined whether the delay from 13-1-1956 to 21-1-1956 in reporting to the State Government was justified. The Commissioner of Police explained that due to the tense and volatile situation in Bombay, with ongoing riots and lawlessness, it was not feasible to report earlier. The Court accepted this explanation, noting that the delay was unavoidable and the report was sent with all reasonable despatch, thereby satisfying the requirement of "forthwith" under Section 3(3) of the Act.

4. Jurisdictional Validity of Transfer of Detention Location:
Special contentions were raised regarding the jurisdictional validity of transferring a petitioner from Arthur Road Prison to Nasik Road Central Prison. The Court clarified that the petitioner was initially detained temporarily at Arthur Road Prison pending arrangements for transport to Nasik, and thus, the transfer was within jurisdiction and not illegal.

5. Adequacy of Grounds for Detention:
The petitioners argued that the grounds for detention related only to their past activities and could not justify future detention. The Court rejected this argument, stating that a person's future actions can be inferred from their past record, which is a valid basis for preventive detention. Additionally, the charge against the petitioners was that they instigated hartal to promote lawlessness and disorder, which is a legitimate ground for detention under Section 3(2) of the Act.

Conclusion:
All contentions raised by the petitioners were dismissed. The Court held that the delay in reporting to the State Government was justified under the circumstances, the transfer of detention location was valid, and the grounds for detention were adequate. The petitions were dismissed.