Judgement

SEN, J. :- By this petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution, one Ashok Kumar seeks issuance of a writ of habeas corpus challenging the validity of the order of detention dated August 11, 1981, passed by the Commissioner of Police, Delhi under sub-s. (2) of S. 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 (for short the Act) on being satisfied that his detention was necessary with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order". The main issue is as to whether the activities of the petitioner fall within the realm of public order or law and order.

2. It appears that on Aug. 12, 1981 while the detenu was held at the Central Jail, Tihar in connection with some of the offences committed by him, he was served with the aforesaid order of detention passed a day earlier i.e. on Aug. 11, 1981. Two days later i. e. on August 14, 1981 he was furnished with the grounds of detention as well as with copies of documents and statements relied upon in the grounds of detention. It seems that the Commissioner of Police forthwith made a report to the Administrator about the passing of the detention order together with the grounds of detention and all other particulars bearing on the same. The said report and the other particulars were considered by the Administrator and he, by his order dated Aug. 20, 1981, approved of the detention order under sub-s. (4) and sent a report to the Central Government as required under sub-s. (5) of S. 3 of the Act. The Administrator by his order dated Aug. 20, 1981 informed the petitioner that his order of detention had been approved by him and that he had a right to make a representation. The case of the petitioner was placed before the Advisory Board who was of the opinion that there was sufficient cause for the detention of the petitioner and accordingly the Administrator by his order dated Sept. 15, 1981 confirmed the aforesaid detention order under sub-s. (1) of S. 12 and further directed under S. 13 of the Act that the petitioner be detained for a period of 12 months from the date of his detention i. e. w.e.f. Aug. 12, 1981.

3. In support of the petition, four points are canvassed. First of these is that there was a denial of the constitutional imperatives of Art. 22 (5) read with S. 8 of the Act which cast a duty on the detaining authority to afford the detenu "the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order of detention" inasmuch as there was unexplained delay of two days in furnishing the grounds of detention; secondly, there was a failure on the part of the Commissioner of Police as well as the Administrator to apply their mind and specify the period of detention while making the order of detention under sub-s. (2) of S. 3 of the Act and therefore the impugned order of detention is invalid; thirdly, the grounds of detention served on the detenu are not connected with "maintenance of public order", but they relate to "maintenance of law and order" and fourthly, the facts as set out in the grounds of detention did not furnish sufficient nexus for forming the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority and further they were vague, irrelevant and lacking in particulars. We are afraid, none of these contentions can prevail.

4. There is no substance in the contention that there was denial of the constitutional imperatives of Art. 22 (5) read with S. 8 of the Act,. because there was unexplained delay two days in furnishing the grounds of detention and it was imperative that the detenu should be furnished with the grounds of detention along with the order of detention. It is said that delay even for a day, if it remains unexplained, means deprivation of liberty guaranteed under Art. 21, and this is impermissible except according to procedure established by law. The contention that the constitutional safeguards in Art. 22 (5) were not complied with merely because the detenu was not simultaneously furnished with the grounds of detention