Judgement

JAGANNADAHADAS, J. : This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the High Court of Bombay dismissing an application made to it under Art. 226 of the Constitution. These proceedings relate to the validity of an order of detention passed by the Government of Bombay on 8-6-1955, against the appellant before us, who is an Advocate of the High Court of Bombay having a standing of about thirty years. He was in the Indian Air Force as an emergency Commissioned Officer between 1943 to 1948 and thereafter on extension for another four years until he attained the age of 55.

It appears that he was also interested in journalism and in public affairs. On his own showing, he was concerned over the political future of Goa and "was opposed to any attempts at intimidation of Indian residents of Goan origin by other political groups and has freely expressed these views in his journalistic articles." He was arrested on 9-6-1955, and is in detention since then under the impugned order, which runs as follows :

"No. P.D.A. 1555 A.

Political and Services Department,

Secretariat,

Bombay, 8th June, 1955

ORDER

Whereas the Government of Bombay is satisfied with respect to the person known as Shri Lawrence Joachim Joseph De-Souza of Bombay, that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the relations of India with the Portuguese Government and to the security of India, it is necessary to make the following Order :-

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-clause (i) of clause (a) of Sub-s. (1) of S. 3 of the Preventive Detention Act. 1950 (Act 4 of 1950). The Government of Bombay is pleased to direct that Shri Lawrence Joachim Jospeth DeSouza of Bombay, be detained.

By order and in the name

of the Governor of Bombay,

Under Secretary to the

Government of Bombay,

Political and Services

Department".

In pursuance of S. 7 of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 (Act 4 of 1950) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) the grounds of detention, also dated 8-6-1955, were served on him along with the order of detention. The validity of the order is challenged on the following contentions.

1. The order of detention was mala fide. It was passed for the ulterior purpose of preventing his freedom of speech and freedom of professional activity in the sphere of Goan affairs by reason of his known views in this behalf.

2. The detaining authority, in exercising its, powers, failed to apply its minds to the existence or otherwise of the legitimate objects of detention.

3. The grounds of detention are vague.

4. The claim of State that no particulars of the grounds could be furnished in pubic interest is unsustainable and in any case mala fide.

The last two have been urged before us not only as independent points as reinforcing the first two.

2. The challenge to the validity of the order based on the attack of mala fides and non-application of the mind of the detaining authority, have been urged before us with great insistence. We have been taken elaborately into what is claimed to be the relevant previous background of events. This part of the arguments raises, what ultimately are questions of facts which have been fully considered by the High Court. It is, therefore enough to State, in its broad outlines, the background, which is alleged as follows :

(1)(a) There was a sudden search by the police on 24-8-1954, at the appellant s place for alleged possession of illicit liquor which, in fact, was not found. But under the guise thereof the police seized and carried away a mass of documents, papers and printed material of the appellant as also a typewriter belonging to him.

(b) On the same day, a search was carried out by the police also at his residence at Mahim but nothing was found.

(c) Immediately following the searches, the appellant was taken into illegal police custody and interrogated, and physically assaulted, and threatened. The above high handed action of the police, by way of search and seizure, was the subject matter of