Judgment

SARKAR, CJI. : The petitioner, Puran Lal Lakhanpal was arrested and detained under Cl. (b) of sub-r. (1) of R. 30 of the Defence of India Rules 1962 by an order passed on December 10 1965 and directed to be detained in Central Jail Tehar, New Delhi. The order stated that :

"Whereas the Central Government is satisfied that with a view to preventing Shri P. L. Lakhanpal, son of late Shri Diwan Chand Sharma, ................from acting in a manner prejudicial to the Defence of India and Civil Defence, public safety and the maintenance of public order, it is necessary that he should be detained;

Now, therefore, ..................... the Central Government hereby directs that the said Shri. P. L. Lakhanpal be detained." He has moved this Court under Art. 32 of the Constitution by a petition presented on December 24, 1965 for a writ of Habeas Corpus directing his release. He challenges the legality of the detention order on various grounds which we now proceed to consider.

2. The first ground is that R. 30 (1) (b) is ultra vires S. 3 (2) (15) (i) of the Defence of India Act under which the Rules were made. Sub-s. (1) of S. 3 contains the general power to make rules for certain purposes. Sub-s. (2) states that the rules made may provide for and may empower any authority to make orders providing for all or any of the following matters, namely :-

* * * *

* * * *

"(15) notwithstanding anything in any other law for the time being in force,-

(i) the apprehension and detention in custody of any person whom the authority empowered.... suspects, on grounds appearing to that authority to be reasonable ......acting, being about to act or being likely to act in a manner prejudicial to the defence of India and civil defence, the security of the State, the public safety or interest, the maintenance of public order, ..... or with respect to whom that authority is satisfied that his apprehension and detention are necessary for the purpose of preventing him from acting in any such prejudicial manner."

Rule 30 (1) (b) is in these terms :

"The Central Government . . . if it is satisfied with respect to any particular person that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the defence of India and civil defence, the public safety, the maintenance of public order, may make an order

(a) * * *

(b) directing that he be detained."

It will be noticed that the rule does not say that the satisfaction mentioned in it shall be on grounds appearing to the authority concerned to be reasonable. It is said that by omitting these words the rule has gone outside the section which mentions them, and is, therefore ultra vires. This contention is untenable. It overlooks the fact that the latter part of the section states that the rules made under it may also provide for the apprehension and detention of a person "with respect to whom that authority is satisfied that his apprehension and detention are necessary" for certain purposes; this part does not contain any requirement as to satisfaction on reasonable grounds. This part of the section is independent of the earlier part under which the apprehension and detention can be directed only when the authority suspects on certain grounds appearing to it to be reasonable that a person is about to act in a certain manner. It is of some significance to point out that the second part of the section is preceded by the word or . That puts it beyond doubt that the rules made under it may provide for detention in two alternative cases, for the first of which only it is necessary that the authority should entertain a suspicion on grounds appearing to it to be reasonable. That requirement is absent in the case of a rule made under the second part of the section. Rule 30 (1) (b) cannot be said to be ultra vires the section for the reason that it does not state that the satisfaction of the authority making the order of detention has to be on grounds appearing to it to be reasonable. The rule requires only that t