1. Detention under Section 3 of the Preventive Detention Act 1950 for activities prejudicial to the security of India and relations with foreign powers. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
1960 Supreme(SC) 12
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
20th January, 1960.
B.P. SINHA, C.J.I., S.J. IMAM, A.K. SARKAR, K.N. WANCHOO AND J.C. SHAH, JJ.
Jagan Nath Sathu, Petitioner
Versus
The Union of India, Respondent.
Writ Petn. No. 170 of 1959.
Advocates appeared
R.V.S. Mani, Advocate, for Petitioner; Mr. C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India (M/s. B. R. L. Iyengar and R. H. Dhebar, Advocates, with him), for Respondent.
Advocates:
B.R.L.Iyengar, C.K.DAFTARY, R.H.Dhebar, R.V.S.Mani
B.R.L.Iyengar, C.K.DAFTARY, R.H.Dhebar, R.V.S.Mani
A country declared not to be a "Foreign State" for specific constitutional purposes remains a "foreign power" for the purposes of foreign affairs and preventive detention, as these terms are construed by their ordinary meaning based on sovereign status.
Headnote:(A) Preventive Detention Act, 1950 - Section 3 - Constitution - Article 367(3), 392(3), 22(6) and Seventh Schedule, List I, Item 9 - Detention on grounds of acting in a manner prejudicial to the relations of the country with foreign powers and the security of the country - Distinction between 'Foreign State' for purposes of the Constitution and 'foreign power' for other purposes - A country being a member of the Commonwealth and declared not to be a 'Foreign State' for the purposes of the Constitution does not preclude it from being a 'foreign power' in the context of foreign affairs and preventive detention - Expressions 'foreign affairs' and 'foreign powers' to be construed in their ordinary meaning. (Paras 10, 11)
(B) Preventive Detention Act, 1950 - Section 10 - Procedure of Advisory Board - Natural justice - Advisory Board calling for further information from the government before hearing the detenue does not offend principles of natural justice. (Para 14)
(C) Constitution - Article 22(6) - Disclosure of facts - Authority not required to disclose facts which it considers to be against public interest. (Para 15)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was detained under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, on grounds that he was engaged in propaganda against the government and sending misleading information to a foreign newspaper, which was prejudicial to the security of the country and its relations with foreign powers. The petitioner challenged the detention, arguing that the foreign country involved, being a member of the Commonwealth, was declared not to be a 'Foreign State' for the purposes of the Constitution and thus could not be regarded as a 'foreign power'.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the extracts of despatches provided sufficient particulars for the petitioner to make a representation. It held that the distinction between a 'Foreign State' for constitutional purposes and a 'foreign power' for other purposes is significant. The procedure followed by the Advisory Board and the non-disclosure of certain facts in the public interest were held to be legally valid.
Issues: Whether a country declared not to be a 'Foreign State' for the purposes of the Constitution can still be regarded as a 'foreign power' for the purposes of preventive detention; whether the grounds of detention were too vague; and whether the principles of natural justice were violated.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that while a Commonwealth member might not be a 'Foreign State' for specific constitutional articles, it remains a sovereign entity and thus a 'foreign power' in the context of foreign affairs and the Preventive Detention Act. The terms 'foreign affairs' and 'foreign powers' must be given their ordinary meaning. Furthermore, the Advisory Board is permitted to obtain information from the government before hearing the detenue, and the state may withhold information if it is against the public interest.
Result: Petition dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether a Commonwealth member constitutes a foreign power, whether grounds were too vague for representation, and whether non-disclosure of materials violated natural justice. (Para 6 , 7 , 9 )
3. Distinction between Foreign State and foreign power; sufficiency of annexed despatches for representation; validity of public interest non-disclosure and Advisory Board procedures. (Para 5 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 )
4. A sovereign Commonwealth member is a foreign power for statutory purposes, regardless of its status as a non-foreign state for specific constitutional purposes. (Para 10 , 11 )
5. Petition dismissed. (Para 16 )
6. Does the classification of a country as not a Foreign State for constitutional purposes mean it is not a foreign power for other legal purposes?
No. There is a distinction between a country not being a Foreign State for the purposes of the Constitution and being a foreign power for other purposes. Sovereign Commonwealth members are independent in external affairs and must be regarded as foreign powers. (Para 10 , 11 )
7. Are grounds of detention considered too vague if specific details are omitted but supporting evidence like extracts of communications are annexed?
No. If the annexed materials, such as extracts of despatches, provide sufficient particulars to enable the detenue to make an effective representation, the grounds are not considered too vague. (Para 13 )
8. Does the Advisory Board violate natural justice by obtaining information from the government before hearing the detenue?
No. Under the Act, the Advisory Board may consider materials and call for further information from the government before deciding if it is essential to hear the detenue in person. (Para 14 )
9. Can the government legally withhold certain facts from a detenue during preventive detention proceedings?
Yes. Under Article 22(6) of the Constitution, the detaining authority is not required to disclose facts which it considers to be against the public interest to disclose. (Para 15 )
Judgment
IMAM, J. : This petition was heard on 4-1-1960, and we intimated then that it was being dismissed and reasons for the same will follow later. We proceed to give our reasons now.
2. The petitioner was detained by an order dated 4-5-1959, of the Central Government under the provisions of S. 3 of the Preventive Detention Act 1950, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The grounds of detention dated 7-5-1959, were served on the petitioner. His case was considered by the Advisory Board constituted by the Central Government under S. 8 of the Act. On the report of the Advisory Board the Central Government by its order dated 23-6-1959, directed that the petitioner be detained until 4-5-1960. It is against this order of detention that the present petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution has been filed by the petitioner.
3. The grounds of detention contained 5 grounds upon which the Central Government was satisfied that it was necessary to detain the petitioner as he was likely to act further in a manner prejudicial to the security of India and the relations of India with foreign Powers. It was further stated in the grounds of detention that the Central Government considered it against the public interest to disclose to the petitioner any facts or particular as to dates, persons, places, nature of activities and the assistance given by him other than those which had been mentioned in the grounds of detention. The grounds of detention further mentioned that some of the specimen despatches sent by the petitioners and some of the reports appearing in a newspaper published in Pakistan were annexed thereto.
4. From the grounds of detention it would appear that the allegation against the petitioner was that he had been engaged in carrying on propaganda against the Government of India and the Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir established by law and against the administration of that State Government is a manner calculated to bring into hatred and contempt the Government of the State and the Government of India; that in furtherance of his propaganda, the petitioner had been inter alia sending for publication in a foreign newspaper despatches news and views relating to the State of Jammu and Kashmir containing false, incomplete, one-sided and misleading information about the administration of the State by the Government of that State, about the policy of the Government of India in relation to that State and about the conditions in India in general and in the State of Jammu and Kashmir in particular; that the said despatches were published prominently by the said newspaper, having a large circulation in Pakistan and other foreign countries, in a manner prejudicial to India and her cause in relation to the State of Jammu and Kashmir and also prejudicial to the relations of India with foreign powers; that the petitioner was in regular touch and closely associated with several persons who are hostile to the cause of India in relation to the State of Jammu and Kashmir and were engaged in activities prejudicial to the security of India and that the cumulative effect of the petitioner s aforesaid activities was prejudicial to the relations of India with foreign powers in general and particularly in regard to the cause of India in respect of the State of Jammu and Kashmir and the maintenance of public order therein.
5. We have examined the various extracts from the despatches sent by the petitioner annexed to the grounds of detention served upon him. They disclose sufficient particulars to enable the petitioner to make a representation to the Advisory Board. Having regard to what appears in these extracts from the despatches sent to the newspapers concerned, they disclose sufficient grounds for the action taken by the Central Government in detaining the petitioner.
6. On behalf of the petitioner it was urged that the order of detention was confined only to two matters (1) that it was made with a view a preventing the petitioner from act
