1. Habeas corpus petition under Article 226 challenging detention under Rule 30 of the Defence of India Rules — Grant of interim bail by High Court. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1966 Supreme(SC) 18
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J.I., J.C. SHAH, S.M. SIKRI, V. RAMASWAMI AND P. SATYANARAYANA RAJU, JJ.
State of Bihar, Appellant
Versus
Rambalak Singh "Balak" and others, Respondents;
Attorney-General, for India, Intervener.
Criminal Appeal No. 200 of 1965.
Advocates appeared
Mr. Lal Narain Sinha, Advocate-General for the State of Bihar and Mr. Bajrang Sahai, Govt. Advocate, (Mr. S. P. Varma, Advocate, with them), for Appellant; M/s. D. Goburdhun and G. N. Sinha, Advocates, for Respondent No. 1, Mr. C. K. Daphtary, Attorney-General for India (Mr. B. R. G. K. Achar, Advocate, with him), for Intervener.
Advocates:
B.R.G.K.Achar, C.K.DAFTARY, D.GOVERDHAN CHARY, G.N.SINHA, LAL NARAIN SINHA, RAJRANG SAHAI, S.P.Varma
B.R.G.K.Achar, C.K.DAFTARY, D.GOVERDHAN CHARY, G.N.SINHA, LAL NARAIN SINHA, RAJRANG SAHAI, S.P.Varma
The High Court possesses the jurisdiction to grant interim bail in habeas corpus petitions under Article 226, even for detentions under Rule 30 of the Defence of India Rules, as interim relief is auxiliary to the main relief, though its exercise is circumscribed by the nature of preventive detention.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Defence of India Rules - Rule 30 - Habeas corpus petition - Interim bail - Jurisdiction of High Court - If jurisdiction is conferred upon a Court to deal with the validity of an order of commitment or detention, the conferment of jurisdiction implies the power of doing all such acts, or employing such means, as are essentially necessary to its execution, including the power to make an interim order in aid of, and as auxiliary to, the main relief. (Paras 4, 6)
(B) Preventive Detention - Exercise of jurisdiction - While the High Court has jurisdiction to grant interim bail to a detenu under Rule 30, the exercise of such jurisdiction is inevitably circumscribed by considerations special to such proceedings, including the object of the detention and the non-justiciability of the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. (Paras 10, 12)
Facts of the case:
A detenu held under Rule 30 of the Defence of India Rules filed a habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court granted interim bail to the detenu pending the final disposal of the petition. The State challenged this order, contending that the High Court lacked the jurisdiction to grant interim bail in proceedings challenging a detention order passed under the said Rules, given the paramount importance of national security and public order.
Findings of Court:
The High Court has the jurisdiction to grant interim bail in habeas corpus proceedings, as such relief is auxiliary to the main relief of release from detention which the court is empowered to grant upon final determination.
Issues: Whether a High Court, while entertaining a habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the Constitution filed on behalf of a detenu detained under Rule 30 of the Defence of India Rules, has the jurisdiction to release the detenu on bail pending final disposal of the petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the power to grant interim relief is auxiliary to the power to grant the final relief. If the High Court has the jurisdiction to set aside a detention order and release a detenu, it inherently possesses the jurisdiction to grant interim bail. However, the exercise of this jurisdiction must be cautious, considering the purpose of preventive detention and the limited scope of judicial review regarding the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction. The court emphasized the distinction between the existence of jurisdiction and its proper exercise.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether High Court possesses jurisdiction to grant interim bail pending final disposal of a habeas corpus petition against detention orders passed under Rule 30, Defence of India Rules. (Para 1 , 5 , 7 )
3. Jurisdiction to grant main relief implies power to grant auxiliary interim relief, though its exercise is circumscribed by the special objects of preventive detention and public safety. (Para 6 , 10 , 11 , 12 )
4. If a court has jurisdiction to grant final relief under Article 226, it inherently possesses jurisdiction to grant auxiliary interim relief, subject to proper exercise of discretion. (Para 4 , 6 , 9 , 12 )
5. Appeal dismissed; High Court's jurisdiction to grant bail in habeas corpus petitions under Article 226 for Rule 30 detentions affirmed. (Para 14 )
6. Does the High Court have jurisdiction to grant interim bail in habeas corpus proceedings under Article 226 for detentions under Rule 30 of the Defence of India Rules?
Yes. If the High Court has jurisdiction to determine the validity of the detention and grant final release, it inherently possesses the jurisdiction to grant interim bail as an auxiliary relief. (Para 4 , 6 , 9 , 12 )
7. How does the nature of preventive detention under Rule 30 affect the exercise of the High Court's jurisdiction to grant bail?
While jurisdiction exists, its exercise is circumscribed by the special objects of the detention, such as public safety and national security, requiring the court to weigh community interests against individual liberty. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 )
8. Can a High Court grant interim bail based on allegations of mala fides before the State files a return?
No. It is generally neither safe nor reasonable to reach a prima facie conclusion on mala fides without allowing the State to file a return and state its case. (Para 10 )
Judgement
GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J.I.: This appeal by special leave is directed against the order passed by the Patna High Court ordering that the detenu Rambalak Singh be released on bail of Rs. 500 with two sureties of Rs. 250 each to the satisfaction of the Registrar of the High Court. The order further mentions that Mr. Girish Nandan Sinha who appeared for the detenu had given an undertaking to the Court that during the pendency of the proceedings when the petitioner is on bail, the petitioner will not indulge in any prejudicial activity or commit any prejudicial act. Mr. Lal Narain Sinha, the Advocate-General of Bihar, has urged on behalf of the appellant, the State of Bihar, that the order under appeal is without jurisdiction; and that raises an important question of law as to whether while entertaining a habeas corpus petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution filed on behalf of a detenu who has been detained under R. 30 of the Defence of India Rules (hereinafter called the "Rules ), the High Court has jurisdiction to release the detenu on bail pending the final disposal of the said habeas corpus petition.
2. The learned Advocate-General stated at the outset that the appellant was not keen on obtaining the reversal of the order of bail which is under appeal; he argued that the appellant wanted the point of law to be decided, because it is necessary that the true legal position in this matter should not be in doubt. That is why we do not propose to deal with the facts leading to the habeas corpus petition on behalf of Rambalak Singh and will not consider the propriety, or the reasonableness of the order under appeal. It is true, as the learned Advocate-General contends, that one rarely comes across a case where the High Court has purported to exercise its jurisdiction under Art. 226 and released a detenu on bail where the order of detention has been passed under R. 30 of the Rules; but that by itself, can afford no assistance in dealing with the question of jurisdiction raised by the present appeal.
3. The learned Advocate-General has fairly invited out attention to the observations recently made by this Court in Special Reference No. 1 of 1964 : 1965-1 SCR 413, which are relevant for the purpose of dealing with the present appeal. In that case, the Legislative Assembly of the State of Uttar Pradesh had committed Keshav Singh, who was not one of its members, to prison for its contempt. Keshav Singh had then moved the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, under Art. 226 of the Constitution and S. 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenging his committal as being in breach of his fundamental rights. He had also prayed for interim bail. The learned Judges who entertained his petition admitted him to bail; and one of the points which arose for decision before this Court in the Special Reference was whether the order passed by the High Court admitting Keshav Singh to bail was without jurisdiction.
4. Mr. Seervai, who had appeared for the U. P. Assembly, had strenuously contended that the order passed by the High Court admitting Keshav Singh to bail was without jurisdiction, and in support of his contention, he had relied upon the English practice which seems to recognise that in regard to habeas corpus proceedings commenced against orders of commitment passed by the House of Commons on the ground of its contempt, bail is not granted by courts. This argument, however, was rejected by this Court, because this Court took the view that "if Art. 226 confers jurisdiction on the Court to deal with the validity of the order of commitment even though the commitment has been ordered by the House, how can it be said that the Court has no jurisdiction to make an interim order in such proceedings? (p. 498 of SCR). Reference was also made to an earlier decision of this Court in the State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal, 1952 SCR 28, where it was ruled than an interim relief can be granted only in aid of, and as auxiliary to, the main relief whi
