Judgment

Ray, C. J.:- The constitutional validity of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971, Being Act No. 26 of 1971 is challenged in these petitions.

2. First, it is said that the law of preventive detention is unreasonable, and therefore, it violates Articles 19. Second, it is said that the Act violates articles 21 because the guarantee of a right to be heard is infringed. Third it is said that the Act does not lay down the just procedure for giving effect to Article 22 (5). Fourth, it is said that the Act violates Article 14 because it permits discrimination.

3. The Act confers powers of the Central Government on the State Government to make orders directing detention of persons. Section 3 of the Act provides that when the Central Government or the State Government is satisfied with respect to any person that with a view to preventing him from acting in manner prejudicial to (i) the defence of India, the relations of India with powers, or the security of India, or (ii) the security of the State or the maintenance of public order, or (iii) the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community. District Magistrates, Additional District Magistrates or Commissioners of Police can pass orders of detention.

4. The Act provides in sub-sections (3) and (4) of S.3 that when any order is made for detention, the officer shall forthwith report the fact to the State Government on the grounds on which the order has been made and such other particulars in his opinion have a bearing on the matter. Further, no order shall remain in force for more then twelve days after the making there of unless in the meantime it has been approved by the State Government. The proviso to sub-section (3) states that where under Sec.8, the grounds of detention are communicated by the authority making the order after five days, but not later than fifteen days from the date of detention, this sub-section shall apply subject to the modification that for the words "twelve days," the words, "twenty-two days" shall be substituted, when any order is made or approved by the State Government the State Government shall, within seven days report the fact to the Central Government together with the grounds on which the order has been made and such other particulars as in the opinion of the State Government have a bearing on the necessity for the order.

5. Section 7 of the Act states that if the Central Government or the State Government or an officer specified in sub-section (2) of S.3 of the Act has reason to believe that a person in respect of whom a detention order has been made has absconded or is concealing himself, a report in writing is to be made to the Presidency Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first class. Thereafter the provisions of Section 87, 88 and 89 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (now the corresponding) sections in the 1973 Act) shall apply in respect of the said person and his property as if the order directing that he be detained were a warrant issued by the Magistrate. An order can also be passed directing such persons to appear and if he fails to comply with the directions he shall unless he proves that it was not possible for him to comply therewith and that he had, within the period specified in the order, informed the officer of the reason which rendered compliance therewith impossible of his whereabouts, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to year or with fine or with both.

6. Section 8 provides that when a person is detained the authority making the order shall, as soon as may be, but ordinarily not later than five days and in exceptional circumstances not later than fifteen days, from the date of detention, communicate to him the ground on which the order has been made and shall afford him the opportunity of making a representation against the order to the appropriate Government.

7. The Government constitutes one or more Advisory Boards. The Board shall consist of three persons who are, or have