Order of detention passed on the activities in the foreign country.

Govinda Menon, J.-This is an application by one M. Subramaniam who had been repatriated from the Federated Malay States, by an order of that Government, as he was a citizen of the Indian Union. Arriving in Madras by “SS. Rajula” on the 26th December, 1948, he was arrested after dis-embarkation and kept in remand till the 7th of January, 1949, on which day an order of detention dated the previous day, was served on him and he was detained under the provisions of Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act. The reasons for detaining him, dated 19th January, 1949, were served on him on the 12th of February, 1949. He files his application on the 26th March, 1949, and it comes up for final disposal before us now. Relying on certain observations in two judgments of the Bombay High Court reported in In re Krishnaji Gopal Brahma1 and In re Pandurang Govind Phatak2, the learned advocate for the petitioner contends that the activities of the petitioner in a foreign country should not be taken into consideration in finding out whether his activities are likely to be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in the Province of Madras. At page 178 Rajadhyaksha, J., in delivering the judgment of the Bench observes as follows:

“Obviously, if the activities of the petitioner were prejudicial to the tranquillity of say, the Province of Madras or of the territories of the Indian States, the District Magistrate would have no jurisdiction to pass any order under the Act. When he therefore says that he was satisfied that the petitioner was acting in a manner prejudicial to the public safety and the maintenance of public order and tranquillity and was carrying on subversive propaganda he must say that the activities of the petitioner affected the peace and tranquillity of the Province.”

The learned Judge further goes on to say that

“When the District Magistrate has specifically given the description of his state of mind, the emission of any reference to peace and tranquillity of this Province would be a serious defect”;

and finally it is stated that the learned Judges did not consider

“the defect as fatal one, as, on that very day, a communication under section 3 was served on the petitioner giving the grounds for the order of detention and this made it clear that the District Magistrate had satisfied himself that the petitioner was acting in a manner prejudicial to the public safety and tranquillity of the particular district.”

Again at page 447 in delivering the judgment of the Bench Sen, J., after quoting the passage from the judgment in In re Krishnaji Gopal Brahma1, stated that

“In that case, though the place of the detenu’s activities was not mentioned in the order under section 2, the defect was not considered fatal and was regarded as cured because the place was mentioned in the statement of grounds furnished under section 3. The view taken, therefore, was that it was not altogether essential to mention the place of the detenu’s objectionable activities in the order itself, the Court being satisfied from the evidence of the statement of grounds that the District Magistrate had actually considered the activities of the detenu with reference to a specific place or area.”

In the case under consideration the last but two paragraphs of the detention order are in the following terms:

“These dangerous workers have now arrived in India. It is considered that in the present circumstances existing in the Province, these repatriates from Malaya are likely to find considerable scope for intensifying their communist activities. These persons are very familiar with the language of the country and from their activities in Malaya, it is likely that they will resort to violence and also to incite the masses to indulge in violent and subversive activities. It is considered detrimental to public interest to allow them to move amidst the public.”

The order of detention clearly states that His Excellency the Governor of Madras was satisfied that Subramaniam, son