9911796707
TMI Blog1953 (4) TMI 24X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o be under unlawful detention. The petitioner was arrested on the 10th March, 1953, under an order of the District Magistrate of Delhi made under section 3 of the Preventive Detention Act as amended. The grounds of detention were communicated to the petitioner on the 15th March, 1953. The first paragraph of that communi- cation states that the Jan Sangh, the Hindu Mahasabha and the Ram Rajya Parishad have started an unlawful campaign in sympathy with the Praja Parishad movement of Kashmir for defiance of the law, involving violence and threat to the maintenance of public order as evidenced by the sub- paragraphs which follow. The incidents referred to in sub- paragraphs (a) to (1) are said to have ranged from the 4th to the 10th Marc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by him. The learned Attorney-General explained that the incidents of the 11th March were referred to not as a ground for the arrest and detention of the petitioner, but merely as evidencing the unlawful activities of the movement organized by the Jan Sangh and the other political bodies of which the petitioner was an active member. The explanation is hardly convincing and we cannot but regard this lapse in chronology as a mark of carelessness. Notwithstanding repeated admonition by this Court that due care and attention must be bestowed upon matters involving the liberty of the individual, it is distressing to find that such matters are dealt with in a careless and casual manner. In view, however, of the statements in the affidavit filed b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gee Association of the Bara Hindu Rao, a local are in Delhi. It is argued by Mr. Veda Vyas that this ground is extremely vague and gives no particulars to enable the petitioner to make an adequate representation against the order of detention and thus infringes the constitutional safeguard provided in article 22 (5). Learned counsel relies on the decision in Atma Ram Vaidya's case(1) where this Court held by a majority that the person detained is entitled, in addition to the right to have the grounds of his detention communicated to him, to a further right to have particulars as full and adequate as the circumstances permit furnished to him so as to enable him to make a representation against the order of detention. It was further ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hold that the ground mentioned in sub-paragraph (e) of paragraph 2 is vague in the sense explained above. On the second question, there is no considered pronouncement by this Court, though in some cases it would appear to have been assumed, in the absence of any argument, that one or two vague grounds could not affect the validity of the detention where there are other sufficiently clear and definite grounds to support the detention. Mr. Veda Vyas now argues that even though the petitioner might succeed in rebutting the other grounds to the satisfaction of the Advisory Board, his representation might fail to carry conviction so far as the ground mentioned in sub- paragraph (e) was concerned in the absence of particulars which he could rebu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
