Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : SHARFUDDIN AHMED
K.V.Subba Rao - Appellant
Versus
State OF A.P. - Respondent
Decided On : 04-08-66
DEFENCE OF INDIA RULES - DETENTION - SATISFACTION OF GOVERNMENT - APPROVAL OF CHIEF MINISTER - SUFFICIENCY - MALA FIDES - PROOF.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a lawyer and a member of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Liberties Association, was detained under the Defence of India Rules, 1962, on the ground that his activities were prejudicial to the defence of India and civil defence. The petitioner challenged the detention order, alleging that it was mala fide and made for collateral purposes.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the detention order was valid and that the petitioner had failed to prove mala fides. The court found that the Government had satisfied itself that the petitioner's activities were prejudicial to the defence of India and civil defence, and that the Chief Minister had approved the detention order after examining the material against the petitioner.
Issues: 1. Whether the detention order was mala fide and made for collateral purposes. 2. Whether the Government had satisfied itself that the petitioner's activities were prejudicial to the defence of India and civil defence. 3. Whether the Chief Minister had approved the detention order after examining the material against the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that a mere allegation of mala fides is not enough and the detenu must prove the mala fides. In the instant case, the petitioner had failed to prove mala fides on the part of the Government. 2. The court held that the Government had satisfied itself that the petitioner's activities were prejudicial to the defence of India and civil defence. The court found that the Government had reliable information that the petitioner was using the cloak of the Civil Liberties Movement for his secret activities against the interests of the State in the matters of the defence of India, civil defence and the efficient conduct of military operations. 3. The court held that the Chief Minister had approved the detention order after examining the material against the petitioner. The court found that the Chief Minister could not have approved of the detention order without applying his mind to the report received by him.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed.
( 1 ) THIS is a petition challenging the order of detention made by the Government of Andhra Pradesh on the 10th of November, 1965 under the Defence of India Rules, 1962 against the petitioner and seeking his release by an order in the nature of habeas corpus under Section 491 Criminal Procedure Code. The order, G. O. Ms. No. 2012 (General Administration SCD Department) dated 10th November, is to the following effect:"whereas the Government of Andhra Pradesh are satisfied with respect to the person known as Shri K. V. Subbarao son of Sri Veerayya that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the defence of India and civil defence and the efficient conduct of military operations, it is necessary to make the following order:- Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (1) of Rule 30 of the Defence of India Rules, 196 2, the Governor of Andhra Pradesh hereby directs that the said Sri K. V. Subbarao be detained. (By Order and in the name of the Governor of Andhra Pradesh) Sd: K. N. Anantaraman. 10-11-1965 Chief Secretary of Government. "
( 2 ) THE petitioner in his affidavit stated that with the proclamation of emergency by the President of India under Article 352 of the Constitution on 26/10/1962 the citizens were debarred from enforcing certain fundamental rights under Articles 14, 21 and 22 of the Constitution while the emergency measures continued to be operative. The Supreme Court of India while dealing with the detentions in 1963 held that in a democratic State the effective safeguards against such abuse of executive powers, whether in peace or emergency, is ultimately to be found in the existence of enlightened, vigilant and vocal public opinion. This was the trend of views generally felt that the members of legal profession should take the lead to safeguard the fundamental rights of the citizens and to raise their voice against encroachment on such rights by the executive. In compliance with and in response to these calls the petitioner began to address pubic meetings in protest of detentions made under void laws and set up a committee for the preservation of civil liberties under the name of "andhra Pradesh Civil Liberties Association", the other two prominent members being a medical practitioner and another lawyer from Khammam. As the movement gained momentum, the local Congress leaders became apprehensive and when the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh visited Khammam in April, 1965 the petitioner and the party were referred to as a menace to the ruling party and a representation was made by J. Vengal Rao and S. Sidda Reddy on behalf of the District Congress Committee to stiffle their voice. The Chief Minister promised to look into the matter. Later on 20/06/1965 a convention was held at Vijayawada under the presidenship of Sri N. C. Chatterjee in which about 2,000 persons participated as delegates and more than 50,000 persons participated in the public meeting. The petitioner was elected to be one of the vice- presidents while the medical practitioner and other lawyers were elected as members of the executive in the said convention. The petitioner was directed to address meetings to raise a voice of protest against the excesses of the executive. Accordingly on 7-11-1965 the petitioner addressed a public meeting at Surya pet which was attended by about 15,000 persons. The local Congress leaders including the State Congress Ministers and the Chief Minister became restive and the Chief Minister seems to have taken a decision on or before 10-11-1965 to punish the petitioner and his colleagues by detaining them and thus preventing them from raising an effective public voice against the curtailment of civil liberties. It is under these circumstances that the impugned order was made.
( 3 ) IT was further urged that the order was mechanical in form and there was no proper delegation to the Chief Secretary as he is not a competent authority for issuing such or
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
