G.N.Prasad, J.

1. The petitioner is the Editor, Printer and Publisher of a daily newspaper called Sangam, printed at the Patna Urdu Printing Press and having circulation in the State of Bihar. By an order of the State Government dated the 19th September 1964, passed under Clause (f) of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 45 of the Defence of India Rules, 1962, he has been directed to deposit as security a sura of Rs. 5,000 in money or in Government securities with the District Magistrate of Patna. This order has been made because a number of articles were published in the said newspaper on various dates between the 9th April 1964 and the 9th September 1964 which, in the opinion of the State Government, contained prejudicial reports as defined in Clause (7) of Rule 35 of the Defence of India Rules. A copy of the order is to be found in Annexure "D" to the writ petition and is in the following terms:

"Government of Bihar,

Political (Special) Department.

ORDER Patna, the 19th September 1964, No. 13001/C. Whereas, it appears to the Governor of Bihar that the Urdu daily SANGAM of the dates specified in the Schedule annexed hereto contain prejudicial reports as defined in Clause (7) of Rule 35 of the Defence of India Rules, 1962; Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (f) of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 45 of the said Rules the Governor is pleased to order the editor and publisher of the said Urdu daily, namely, Shri Gulam Sarwar, to deposit as security Rs. 5,000 (five thousand) only in money or in Government securities on or before the 30th September 1964 with the District Magistrate of Patna."

In a schedule appended to the said order, mention has been made of 39 articles which are said to contain prejudicial reports. The order has been signed by Shri J. M. Dutta, Undersecretary to Government, Political (Special) Department, who is respondent No. 3 to the writ application. Respondent No. 1 is the State of Bihar and respondent No. 2 is the Governor of Bihar.

2. The petitioner has challenged the validity of the said order on various grounds and has filed this application praying that the impugned order be called up and quashed by this Court and the respondents be restrained from taking action thereunder, by issue of an appropriate writ under Article 226 of the Constitution.

3. In order to appreciate the contentions put forward before us on behalf of the petitioner, it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions contained in the Defence of India Act, 1962 (Act 51 of 1962) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and to the relevant rules of the Defence of India Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules).

4. The Act, as is well known and as its long title indicates, was brought on the Statute book "to provide for special measures to ensure the public safety and interest, the defence of India and civil defence and for the trial of certain offences and for matters connected therewith". It followed the issue of a proclamation by the President under Clause (1) of Article 352 of the Constitution, declaring that a grave emergency existed whereby the security of India was threatened by external aggression. Sub-section (1) of Sec.3 of the Act empowers the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, to make "such rules as appear to it necessary or expedient for securing the defence of India and civil defence, the public safety, the maintenance of public order or the efficient conduct of military operations, or for maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community". Sub-section (2) of the same section contained a list of 57 matters in regard to which provision can be made in the Rules "without prejudice to the generality of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1)". Clauses (5) and (7) of Sub-section (2) of Sec.3 are relevant to the present purposes, and I propose to quote relevant portions thereof:

"(5) preventing the spreading without lawful authority or excuse of reports or the prosecuti