The subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is sufficient for the purpose of making a detention order under the Preventive Detention Act, and the grounds communicated to the detenue must be clear and precise to enable effective representation.

( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Section 491, Cr. P. C. and Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ of a habeas corpus. Petitioner is the son of the detenue, Abdul Wahed Ovaisi, who was taken into oustody on 14-3-1958 under the order dated 13-3-1958 made by the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad under Section 3 (1) read with Sub-section (2) of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 (Act IV of 1950 ). On 37-3-1958 the grounds on which the order was made were communicated to the detenue informing him at the same time that against the order he had a right to make representation to the Chief Secretary to the Government of Andhra Pradesh within the prescribed period. These grounds were to the effect that the said detenue had been "rousing or attempting to rouse communal passions and creating or attempting to create panic, resentment or hatred in the minds of the Muslims against the State and the non-Muslims as disclosed by his speeches made by him in public meetings" on 5th, 12th, 23rd, 2 4/10/1957, 15-11-1957 and 9-1-1958. They contain some extracts of these speeches and also the particulars of the places where they were made. They further hear reference to the historical background which gives an account of the organisation known as Majlis Ittehadul Muslemeen of which the detenue is the present President by virtue of his nomination by the previous president, Khasim Razvi. It shows how Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslemeen which was started at Hyderabad in 1928 entered the political field in 1939-40 and then after Khasim Razvi had become its President in 1946 had made an intensive demand for an independent Islamic State under the sovereignty of the Nizam and organised a militant batch of armed volunteers called "razakars" with a view to resist all attempts of accession of the State to the Union of India and how their activities became a menace to the peace and tranquillity of the state resulting in several offences of arson loot and murder committed throughout the length and breadth of the State; and how Kasim Razvi, the leader of the Razakar organisation was-after the police action arrested, convicted and sentenced to a long term imprisonment in tile Bibi-nager dacoity case and then Ittehadul Muslemeen became a defunct body during the period when he-was undergoing imprisonment; how Khasim Razvi after his release from prison in September, 1957 and before he left for Pakistan nominated Ovaisi as President of the Majlis-e-Ittehadui Muslemeen on 18-9-1957; and how since then the detenue has been endeavouring to rally the Muslims and revive the Maj-lis-e-Ittehadul Muslemeen so as to make it a powerful communal organisation of the Muslims and has been "making speeches and exploiting the religious-feelings of the Muslim masses. "

( 2 ) AFTER these grounds were communicated,, the detenue made his representation to the authority concerned and after the review of his case by the Advisory Board the present petition has been made on 20-6-1958 for a writ of habeas corpus.

( 3 ) IN the accompanying affidavit the petitioner contended that the grounds of detention communicated to the detenue were false, that they were irrelevant to the objects of the Preventive Detention Act and that they were vague, indefinite and ambiguous and in fact were no grounds at all so that effective representation of the kind contemplated by Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India could be made. As regards the alleged extracts from his speeches, the petitioner stated that some of then are mere distorted reports while the others are wholly untrue. In relation to the historical background, the petitioner stated that he was no doubt a member of the Ittehadul Muslemeen for sometime but was not associated with any of the Razakar activities and had always tried his best to bring about peace and communal harmony. According to him, though the present Majlis bears the same name as before, its constitution is altogether different. He maintained that he had delivered no speech wh

Click Here to Read the rest of this document