Judgment

DAS J.: This application under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India for a writ of habeas corpus made by Ashutosh Lahiry at present detained in District Jail, Delhi, under an order of detention passed on the lst. April 1950 by the District Magistrate of Delhi under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 raises two questions, namely; (1) that the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 takes away or abridges the fundamental rights of the Indian citizens conferred by Part III of the Constitution and is accordingly void under Article 13(2) of the Constitution; and (2) that the Order of detention has been made mala fide and is an abuse of power and as such void, illegal and inoperative.

The first question mentioned above is now concluded by the decision of this Court which, by a majority upheld the validity of the impugned Act except as to certain provisions which were held to be severable. The provisions which were held to be bad have no bear- ing on the present case.

2. In order to determine the second question it will be necessary to state a few facts. The petitioner is a member of the Hindu Mahasabha. He is a representative of the Bengal Hindu Mahasabha on the Working Committee as well as on the All India Committee of that organisation. In the recent past there were serious communal disturbances in East Bengal in course of which there were, as alleged, extensive killings of Hindu minorities and abduction of Hindu women. This resulted in a large scale migration of Hindus from East Bengal into West Bengal which, it is stated, is still in progress. There can be no question that Hindu feelings were and are running high and communal evidence and repercussions took place in West Bengal also.

A large number of refugees poured into West Bengal and particularly in Calcutta. The Petitioner actively took part in the relief work undertaken by the Hindu Mahasabha and actively co-operated with the Bengal Chief Minister (Dr. B. C. Roy) in the work. On 5-3-1950 the Prime Minister of India visited Calcutta to Study the situation on the spot. There was a move to hold a hartal on that day. The petitioner issued a Press statement deprecating such move as ill-advised and called upon the citizens not to join in the hartal . The petitioner claims that as a result of his appeal the hartal fell through. The petitioner is said to have interviewed the Prime Minister in connection with relief work. It appears that there was a public meeting in Delhi on or about 19-3-1950. It is alleged that intemperate speeches were delivered at this meeting touching the communal situation in East Beagal and that such speeches led to a communal riot in Delhi on 19-3-l950. On 23-3-1950 the Petitioner came to Delhi for, he says, attending the Board meeting of a company of which he is a director.

On 27-3-1950 the petitioner held a Press conference at Delhi where, it is alleged, he gave a highly exaggerated and communal version of the happening in Bengal and East Bengal. No report of the Press conference, however, was published by the authorities. On 28-3-1950 the petitioner returned to Calcutta where he ordinarily resides. A meeting of the Working Committee and a meeting of the All India Committee of the Hindu Mahasabha were called by its President for the 1st and the 2nd April 1950, the notices having been issued on 15-3-1950. The object of these meetings was to discuss the situation in Bengal with special reference to the large influx of refugees. These were not public meetings. The meetings were, however, banned and the President, the Genaral Secretary, the Organising Secretary and others were externed from Delhi on the 1st April 1950. On the same day at 8-45 p.m. a detention order dated 31-3-1950 was served on the petitioner.

On the 3rd April the following grounds of detention were served on the petitioner under Section 7 of the Act :

"You came to Delhi on March 27, 1950 and held a press conference in which you gave a highly exaggerated and communal version of happenings i