SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

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

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















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top