Judgment

Chandrasekhara Aiyar J. (On behalf of himself, Fazl Ali and B. K. Mukherjea JJ.) - The earlier of the two petitions has been filed by one Ujagar Singh, under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India, for a writ of habeas corpus and for an order of release from detention. The letter petition is a similar one by one Jagjit Singh. in both the petitions, the respondent is the State of Punjab. The orders of detention were made under the Preventive Detention Act 4 of 1950. The petitions are not connected with each other, except that they raise the same grounds.

2. In petition No. 149 of 1950, Ujagar Singh was originally arrested and detained under the East Punjab Safety Act on 29-9-1948. He was released on 28-3-1949, but on the same date, there was an internment order against him. On 29-9-1949, he was rearrested. On 2-3-1950, an order of detention under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, was served on him, and on 3-4-1950, he was served with the grounds of detention dated 11-3-1950. Both in September 1949 and in March 1950, the ground alleged was "You tried to create public disorder amongst tenants in Una Tehsil by circulating and distributing objectionable literature issued by underground communists." Additional grounds were furnished in July 1950.

3. In petition No. 167 of 1950, Jagjit Singh was arrested on 24-7-1948 under the provisions of the Punjab Safety Act, 1947. After the East Punjab Public Safety Act, 1949, came into force, a fresh detention order dated 14-5-1949 was served on him and he continued to be kept in jail. Grounds of detention were given to him on 7-9-1949. A fresh order of detention under the Preventive Detention Act 4 of 1950 dated 2-3-1950 was served on 7-3-1950. Grounds of detention dated 11-3-1950 were served on him on 3-4-1950. Both in September 1949 and April 1950, the same ground was given i. e., "In pursuance of the policy of the Communist Party, you were engaged in preparing the masses for violent revolutionary campaign and attended secret party meetings to give effect to this programme." Additional or supplementary grounds were served on 5-8-1950.

4. Several contentions were advanced on behalf of the petitioners challenging the legality of their detention and urging that as the detention was unlawful and the petitioners fundamental right of personal liberty had been infringed, they should be set at liberty. The points taken on their behalf can be briefly summarised as follows. As the ground of detention now mentioned was the same as the ground specified in 1948 or 1949, i. e., months earlier under the Provincial Acts, the order of detention was made mechanically and was really mala fide in the sense that there is nothing to show that there was any fresh satisfaction on the part of the detaining authority that detention was necessary in the interests of public order. Secondly, the grounds were not given "as soon as may be," which is required under S. 7 of the Act; and as an unusually long period of time elapsed between the order of detention and the giving of the grounds, the detention must be held to be unlawful after the lapse of a reasonable time. Thirdly, the grounds given originally were so vague that they could not be said to be grounds at all such as would enable the detenu to make any representation against the order. Fourthly, supplementary grounds could not be furnished and should not be taken into account in considering whether the original order was lawful, or whether the detention became unlawful after a particular period of time. Two other points of a subsidiary nature were also raised, namely that the order was bad as the period of detention was not specified therein as appears to be required by S. 12 and that the grounds given did not purport to state that the authority making the order was the Governor of the State.

6. There is no substance in the last two points. Section 12 of the Act does not require that the period of detention should be specified in the order itself where the de