Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Beg and Chowdhry, JJ.
SARJU PANDEY - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Respondents
Criminal Misc. Case 2029 Of 1955
Decided On : 01/05/1956
PREVENTIVE DETENTION - GROUNDS FOR DETENTION - COMMUNICATION OF ADVISORY BOARD'S REPORT - RIGHT TO CRITICISE GOVERNMENT - JURISDICTION OF DETENTION AUTHORITY - CONSTITUTIONALITY OF PREVENTIVE DETENTION ACT - FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION - EQUALITY BEFORE LAW.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Sarju Pandey, a member of the Provincial Committee of the U. P. Communist Party and vice-President of the U. P. Kishan Sabha, was detained under Section 3 (1) (a) (ii) of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, for allegedly delivering speeches inciting people to violence. The petitioner challenged the detention order on various grounds, including the incorrectness of the grounds of detention, non-communication of the Advisory Board's report within three months of arrest, and the ultra vires nature of the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner's contention that the grounds of detention were incorrect was not justiciable as the Legislature had left the making of the detention order to the subjective satisfaction of the authority concerned. The court also held that there was no requirement under the Act for the communication of the Advisory Board's report to the detenu, and that the petitioner had the opportunity to challenge the grounds of detention before the Advisory Board. The court further held that the petitioner's right to criticize the government was subject to the condition that it should not result in violence or incitement to violence. The court also held that the District Magistrate had the jurisdiction to consider speeches made by the petitioner outside his territorial jurisdiction as grounds for detention, as preventive detention was a precautionary measure aimed at preventing future acts that could disturb public order. Lastly, the court held that the Preventive Detention Act was not ultra vires the Constitution as it fell under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution, and that the classification of persons under Section 3 of the Act was reasonable and related to the object of the Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner's contention that the grounds of detention were incorrect was justiciable. 2. Whether there was a requirement under the Act for the communication of the Advisory Board's report to the detenu. 3. Whether the petitioner's right to criticize the government was absolute or subject to conditions. 4. Whether the District Magistrate had the jurisdiction to consider speeches made by the petitioner outside his territorial jurisdiction as grounds for detention. 5. Whether the Preventive Detention Act was ultra vires the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Legislature had left the making of the detention order to the subjective satisfaction of the authority concerned, and therefore the question of the truth of the statements contained in the grounds of detention was beyond the jurisdiction of the Court to decide. 2. The Act did not provide for the communication of the Advisory Board's report to the detenu, and the petitioner had the opportunity to challenge the grounds of detention before the Advisory Board. 3. The right to criticize the government was subject to the condition that it should not result in violence or incitement to violence. 4. Preventive detention was a precautionary measure aimed at preventing future acts that could disturb public order, and therefore the District Magistrate had the jurisdiction to consider speeches made by the petitioner outside his territorial jurisdiction as grounds for detention. 5. The Preventive Detention Act fell under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution, and the classification of persons under Section 3 of the Act was reasonable and related to the object of the Act.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed.
( 1 ) THIS is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus by one Sarju Pandey, a detenu in the District Jail at Lucknow, against the order of the District Magistrate of Ghazipur, dated 14-5-1955, passed under Section 3 (1) (a) (ii), Preventive Detention Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The order purported to have been passed with a view to preventing the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
( 2 ) THE petitioner is a member of the Provincial Committee of the U. P. Communist Party and vice-President of the U. P. Kishan Sabha. He was arrested on the same day on which the detention order was passed and on 16-5-1955 he was supplied with the grounds of detention. He was accused of having delivered a number of speeches between 29-12-1954 and 13-5-1955 inciting people to violence, and the District Magistrate therefore felt satisfied that it was necessary to make the detention order with a view to preventing the petition from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State and the maintenance of public order. The gist of these speeches, or extracts therefrom, were given in the grounds, and instances of resultant acts of violence were cited.
( 3 ) THE petitioner made a representation, against the detention order to the State Government, and the latter placed the grounds for the detention and the petitioners representation against it before the Advisory Board. The Board, after hearing the petitioner, submitted its report on 19-7-1955 that there was in its opinion sufficient cause for the detention of the petitioner whereupon the detention order was confirmed by the Government. The report of the Advisory Board was communicated to the District Magistrate of Ghazipur by the Government by means of a letter dated 11-8-1955 from Lucknow. This letter reached the district Magistrate of Ghazipur on 16-8-1955, and on the same date the District Magistrate issued a letter addressed to the Superintendent, Sitapur Jail, where the detenu was then supposed to be detained, informing him of the decision of the Advisory Board. It appears, however, that meanwhile the detenu had been transferred to the Lucknow Jail. The aforesaid letter of the District Magistrate was therefore redirected to the Lucknow Jail and communicated there to the petitioner on 27-8-1955. On 26-9-1955 the present petition was filed. The petition is supported by the petitioners affidavit. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State by Rana Jai Singh, Sub-Inspector district Intelligence Staff Ghazipur, he being the officer who had submitted reports of the speeches delivered in various meetings by the petitioner. The following points have been raised by the petitioner, who argued the case personally before us.
( 4 ) THE grounds supplied to the petitioner reproduce extracts from the petitioners speeches. According to those extracts, the petitioner purports on a number of occasions to have incited people to violence. The first point taken by the petitioner was that the aforesaid extracts were not a correct reproduction of the speeches delivered by him, his contention being that the portions of the speeches attributed to him in which he is alleged to have incited people to violence were mere fabrications. According to him, he never uttered a word inciting the public to violence and words to that effect had been introduced into his speeches in order to justify his arrest under the Preventive detention Act. He brought to our notice a number of cuttings from two newspapers, the Aj banaras and the Quami Aawaz Lucknow, in which references were made to some of the speeches delivered by the petitioner. In some of the cuttings there were comments in respect of certain meetings addressed by the petitioner It was arguedi by the petitioner that in none of these extracts was there any reference made to his having incited the public to violence. He also showed to us a booklet published by the Communist Par
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
