Judgment

GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J.I. :

These Criminal Appeals and Writ Petitions have been placed for hearing together in a group because they raise common questions of law.

2. As is well known, after the Chinese attacked the northern border of India on the 8th September, 1962, the President issued a Proclamation under Art. 352 of the Constitution on the 26th October, 1962. This proclamation declared that a grave emergency existed which posed a threat to the security of India. On the same day, an Ordinance was promulgated by the President. This Ordinance was subsequently modified by Ordinance No. 6 of 1962 on the 3rd of November, 1962. The President also issued an Order under Art. 359 (1) suspending the rights of citizens to move any court for the enforcement of the rights conferred by Articles 21 and 22 during the pendency of the emergency proclamation. On the 26th October, 1962, the Rules framed by the Central Government under the Defence of India Act (hereinafter called the Rules ) were published. Rule 30 of the Rules as originally framed was subsequently modified on the 6th December, 1962 and Rule 30-A was added. Later, an Act was passed on the 12th December, 1962 and S. 48 (1) of this Act provided for the repeal of the earlier Ordinances. Even so, S. 48 (2) provided for the continuance of the Rules framed under the Ordinances, so that the relevant Rules framed under the Ordinances have to be taken as Rules framed under the latter Act.

3. It appears that Mr. Mukherji who was the Administrator of the Union Territory of Tripura, at the relevant time, considered the material placed before him as such Administrator and was satisfied that a group of Communists had been agitating amongst the tribals residing in the area and inciting them against the Government, and he came to the conclusion that their activities were likely to endanger the security of the State. Acting on this view; he directed that 68 persons should be detained under Rule 30 (i) (b) and passed appropriate orders in that behalf. Later, he was satisfied that 45 out of these 68 persons need not be detained any longer; and so, he ordered their release from time to time. That left 23 persons under detention and it is with the cases of these 23 persons that we are concerned in the present group of criminal appeals and writ petitions.

4. 12 out of these 23 persons moved the Judicial Commissioner of Tripura under Art. 226 of the Constitution and prayed that the orders of detention under which they continued to be detained at the time of their petitions were illegal and should be set aside and they should be ordered to be released forthwith. These applications were heard together by the learned Judicial Commissioner and were ultimately dismissed. Against his decision, Criminal Appeals Nos, 87 to 91 of 1964, and l06 and 107 of 1964 have been filed by the Detenues, with special leave granted to them by this Court on petitions made by them in that behalf. It appears that the detenues Mohan Chaudhury and Jagabrata Sen Gupta who have joined in Cr. As. Nos. 87-91/1964, have also preferred separate Criminal Appeal Nos. 106 and 107/1964 individually. That is how this group of appears is concerned with the cases of 12 detenues who had moved the Judicial Commissioner under Art. 226; and their grievance is that the view taken by the Judicial Commissioner in regard to the points of law raised by them before him, is not correct.

5. The Writ Petitions deal with cases of 11 remaining detenues and they joined the detenues who have preferred appeals before us by special leave in contending that the continuance of their detention is invalid and that a similar plea raised by the appellants before the Judicial Commissioner should have been upheld by him. That is how the criminal appeals and the writ petitions between them raise common questions of law.

6. Mr. Garg who appeared for the appellants and the petitioners, as well as the learned Solicitor-General who appeared for the respondent, the Chief C