( 1. ) THIS and the other petitions, 28 in the number, have been filed by the respective petitioners against the orders of detention passed against them on various dates after the 25th of June, 1975. Except in Petition No. 138 of 1975, no counsel appeared. However, out of the petitioners, three of them, namely, Shilkumar Nigam, M. D. Chandwaskar and U. C. Porwal, happen to be lawyers and all the petitioners who were present in person submitted that they have nothing further to argue except what has been submitted by the three petitioners named above in connection with their own petitions.

( 2. ) BROADLY speaking, the orders of detention of all those petitioners can be categorized into three categories :

(i) Initially they were arrested under section 151 of the Code of Criminal procedure and preceedings under section 107 of the Code were launched and subsequently, after the amendment of the Maintenance of Internal Security act, a declaration as contemplated by the amended Act was issued.

(ii) The orders were issued under section 3 of the Maintenance of internal Security Act mentioning the grounds in some cases and subsequently after the amendment of the Act a declaration under the amended Act was issued.

(iii) The orders were passed after the amendment of Maintenance of internal Security Act and declaration as contemplated under this Act were issued.

( 3. ) IN all these petitions, preliminary objections have been raised on behalf of the State Government, and they are :

(1) That in view of the Proclamation of Emergency by the President on 25th June 1975 and in view of the subsequent order of the President under article 359 of the Constitution, dated 27th June 1975, the rights guaranteed to the petitioners under Articles 14, 21, 22 and 19 of the Constitution are suspended. And because of the order of the President dated 27th June 1975, their right to move the Court also has been suspended and therefore these petitions cannot be entertained.

(2) The second objection raised by the State Government is that the maintenance of Internal Security (Amendment) Ordinance, which subsequently was passed into an Act, by section 7 thereof, has suspended any right to liberty under any other law during the continuance of the Emergency and on this basis, therefore, it was contended that these petitions do not deserve to be considered on merits.

( 4. ) FOR the petitioner it was contended that although by Proclamation of emergency the rights of the petitioners under Article 19 are in a state of suspensation and by a subsequent order of the President under Article 359 of the Constitution their rights under Articles 14, 21 and 22 have been suspended and their rights to move the Court for enforcement of their rights under articles 14, 21 and 22 has been suspended, still, the petitioners can come to the court and pray that the orders passed against them are not in accordance with the Act under which they purport to have been passed. It was also contended that the Supreme Court in the decisions reported in Makhan Singh Tarsikka v. The State of Punjab ( AIR 1964 SC 381.); K. Ananda Nambiar v. Chief Secretary to Govt. of Madras (AIR 1966 SC 657.)and Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar and another (AIR 1966 SC 740.), has considered this aspect of the matter at length and it has been held that even when the right to approach the Court for enforcement of rights under Articles 14, 21 and 22 is suspended, still the Court has jurisdiction to examine the orders and find out if they have been passed in accordance with the Act and are not a mere camouflage or an abuse of the process of law.

( 5. ) IT was also contended that where an order of detention initially was issued under section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, the procedure contemplated under the different sections of the unamended Act has to be followed, the order could not be held to be valid. It was also contended that when an order is passed under section 3, within twelve days it has