( 1 ) THIS is an application by Sri Asha Ram, a Lecturer in the Allahabad University, praying that this Court may be pleased to release him in the exercise of the powers of habeas corpus which it enjoys under Article 226 of the Constitution.

( 2 ) MR. Asha Ram has been in preventive detention in pursuance of an order issued by the District magistrate of Allahabad on 24th April 1950. This order was issued by the District Magistrate under Section 3, Preventive Detention Act. Section 3 (1) of that Act empowers the Central government or the State Government to make an order directing a person to be detained if it is satisfied with respect to any person that it is essential to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to-- (i) the defence of India, the relations of India with foreign powers, or the security of India, or (ii) the security of the State or the maintenance of public order, or (iii) the maintenance of supplies, and services essential to the community. Sub-clause (2) of Section 3 empowers, inter alia, a District Magistrate or the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. . . if satisfied, as provided in Sub-clause (ii) and (iii) of Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) to exercise the power conferred by the said sub-section.

( 3 ) IT will be noticed that under this Sub-section it is open to the District Magistrate to order preventive detention of persons whose actions are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The case, therefore, against Mr. Asha Ram is that his acts were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

( 4 ) ON the date on which this order was passed by the District Magistrate of Allahabad, the preventive Detention Act had been declared to be invalid by a Bench of this Court. An application for a writ of habeas corpus was moved on behalf of Mr. Asha Ram on 28th April 1950 and it first came up before Bind Basni Prasad J. That learned Judge did not appear to be satisfied with the correctness of the Bench decision of this Court and directed a reference of the question raised by the application of Mr. Asha Ram to a larger Bench. By an order of the learned chief Justice, Mr. Asha Rams application was referred to a Full Bench. The order of Bind Basni prasad J. was passed on 8th May 1950. Thereafter, on 19th May 1950 the Supreme Court held that the Preventive Detention Act was not ultra vires of the Constitution. That Court further held that Section 14, Preventive Detention Act was ultra vires of the Indian Legislature. The position, as I see, is that on the date on which Mr. Asha Rams detention was ordered by the District magistrate of Allahabad there was a Bench decision of this Court which had held that the preventive Detention Act, in so far as it had provided for preventive detention, for the maintenance of public order or maintenance of supplies and service essential to the community, was invalid. The Supreme Court has now held that the decision by a Bench of this Court, in regard to the invalidity of the Preventive Detention Act, as a whole, was erroneous. That decision of the Supreme Court is binding upon me and I have to proceed, therefore, upon the assumption that the Act, under which Mr. Asha Ram is being detained, is valid in law. This being the position, it is unnecessary to comment on the propriety or - impropriety of the District magistrates assumption that the Bench decision of this Court was necessarily incorrect.

( 5 ) IT strikes me that it is the peculiar privilege of Courts of law to interpret the laws of the constitution and of the State and it is not for executive officers--high or low--to act upon the assumption that interpretations of law given by the highest Court of law within their jurisdiction are necessarily incorrect. As the matter has now been finally settled by the Supreme Court, it is unnecessary to make any comment on the procedure adopted by the District Magistrate of allahabad.

( 6 ) WHAT I have got to see in a case under the Preventive Detention Act is whether, as the l