AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M.M. Punchhi, J.
The petitioner Bishanpal Singh alias Fauji was detained vide detention order dated 22.4.1984 by the District Magistrate, Jullundur. in exercise of powers under section 3(2) and 3(3) of National Security Act, 1980. There were two grounds of detention which are quoted hereafter :
"You have been an accused in the following cases :
F.I R. No. 239 dated 18.6.1975 u/s 9/1/78 Opium Act P.S. Phillaur.
F.I.R. No. 40 dated 2331977 u/s 307/452 I.P.C. P.S. Goraya.
F.I.R. No. 108 dated 1151978 u/s 9/1/78 Opium Act P.S. Nawanshahr.
F.I.R. No. 31 dated 2811981 u/s 302/307 I.P.C. P.S. City, Hoshiarpur.
F.I.R. No. 7 dated 311984 u/s 307/34 I.P.C. and 25/54/59 Arms Act and 9.1.78, Opium Act P.S. Nurmahal.
In case at serial No. 4, you have been accused of firing on a Police party headed by S.I. Jaskirat Singh, S.H.O., P. S. Nurmahal. These indicate that you have a prediliction for breaking the law and also an inclination for using violence. A copy of F.I.R. No. 7/311984 u/s 307/34 I.P.C., 25/54/59 Arms Act and 9/1/78 Opium Act, P.S. Nurmahal, Distt. Jalandhar, is appended at Annexure `A''.
In the recent past, you have developed contacts with the leading Members of the Akali Dal of the area, namely, Sh. Bhajan Singh Akali Jathedar, village Tehang, Jatehdar Saroop Singh s/o Kehar Singh, village Kang Dhesian, Members S.G.P.C., and others, and you assisted them in taking a large Jatha to Amritsar, for the purpose of violation of prohibitory orders in Amritsar and offering of arrests. You yourself participated in this jatha. While at Amritsar, you developed contacts with Surinder Singh alias Chhinda r/o village Jagalpur, P.S. Sadar, Phagwara; Surjit Singh, r/o Maluwal, P. S. Bhatinda; and Daljit Singh alias Lati of Harke Transport, Gol Bagh, Amritsar, who were known smugglers and supporters of the All India Sikh Students Federation, which has been banned vide order of the Govt. of India dated 19.3.1984. You are also known to have a close association with Mohan Singh s/o Gulzar Singh r/o Kadian, and Amarjit Singh of village Sangh Dhesian, who are known activists of the now banned A.I.S.S.F. and are the accused in F.I.R. No. 137 dated 8.3.1984 u/s 308/325, 148/149 I.P.C., P. S. City, Phagwara, in which it is alleged that they beat up Sh. Hardev Singh s/o Gurnam Singh of village Ghurka, P.S. Gorya, and Tara Singh s/o Piara Singh Sani, r/o village Usmanpur, P.S. Nawanshahr, Jai Gopal s/o Harbans Lal Dhiman, all students of Phagwara. It is alleged that the cause of the enmity between the above two groups was that the former were workers of the now banned A.I.S.S.F. and the latter were the members of the Students Federation of India.
Your intention in developing these contacts is to offer financial assistance to these members of the A.I.S.S.F. and also training the use of arms in which you are proficient as a result of your Military background.
These facts have been reported vide secret report of S.I. Jaskirat Singh, S.H.O., P.S. Nurmahal dated 2041984 at Annexure B'' and secret report of S 1. Jaskirat Singh, S.H.O., P.S. Nurmahal, dated 1841984 at Annexure ''C''. There is also a statement of Sh. Balwant Rai s/o Mohan Lal made before S.I. Jaswant Singh S.H.O., P.S. Phillaur, at Annexure `D''. For your association and assistance rendered by you to the members of the now banned A.I.S.S.F., case F.I.R. No. 133 dated 2041984 inter alia u/s 13 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, has been registered against you. A copy of F.I.R. No. 133 dated 2141984 along with addition of offence u/s 13 of the Unlawful Activities Act (Prevention) Act is at Annexures ''E'' and ''F'' copy of F.I.R. No. 137 dated 831984 P.S. City, Phagwara, is at Annexure ''G'' and copy of recovery memo dated 224.1984 made at the time of your arrest in F I R. No. 138 dated 2141994 P.S. Phillaur, is at Annexure ''H''. Photostat copy of the notebook recovered from you in which inter alia the name of Surinder Singh alias Chhinda appears at page 56. is at Annexure ''I''. A copy of the order of the Govt. of India banning the A.I.S.S.F. under the provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, is at Annexure ''J''."
As is plain, the grounds have their (sic) and hues though numerically they are two in number.
The petitioner challenges the detention order by way of this petition for habeas carpus.
The petitioner termed ground No. 1 to be irrelevant and vague. He contended that the copies of the first four F.I.Rs had not been supplied to him and thus the material supplied, whatever, was inadequate denying him the opportunity of proper representation. Further more, he contended that the fourth F.I.R. mentioned therein being F.I.R No. 31 of 1981 had resulted in his acquittal, thus rendering the ground nonexistent. And, lastly, no detention order could be passed on the basis of registration of F.I.Rs alone in that context.
The second ground was termed by the petitioner as vague and nonexistent it was maintained that the petitioner had a right under Article 19(1)(b) and (c) to assemble peaceably and to form associations or unions by mixing with political leaders of one party or the other, and as such. the ground of his taking and participating in jathas to Amritsar was irrelevant. Furthermore, it was contended that the allegation was vague as no time and date had been given of the suggested participation. And lastly, in this context, it was maintained that his alleged development of contacts with known smugglers and activists of All India Sikh Students Federation, some of whose members were involved in cases against another group of students, was wholly an irrelevant consideration, especially when the information in that regard was based upon secret reports of S.I. Jaskirat Singh, S.H.O. Nurmahal, who was inimically disposed towards the petitioner the said officer allegedly having been convicted at the instance of one of the relatives of the petitioner.
On the other hand, the District Magistrate, Jullundhur who passed the order of detention, has countered the material points raised in the petition by contending that the grounds of detention provide grounds to believe that the detenu is a person who had a criminal record and had a predeliction of violating the law and committing acts of violence. Further, it is stated by him that there are grounds to believe that the detenu is connected with the banned organisation of All India Sikh Students Federation as also with the Akali Morcha, which pertained to the commission of acts of violence and the violation of prohibitory orders passed by the authorities responsible for maintaining the public order With regard to F.I.R No 31 of 1981 mentioned at Serial No. 4 of ground No. 1, shelter was taken by him that since it pertained to district Hoshiarpur, he was denying it for want of knowledge, but otherwise both the grounds were stated to be existing, clear, relevant and specific. It was also highlighted that the detenu was formerly employed in the Army and was proficient in the use of weapons; his intention being of developing contacts with the members of All India Sikh Students Federation and to render them financial assistance as also to train them in the use of arms.
In support of the attack to ground No. 1, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on Smt. Bimla Dewan v. The Lieutenant Governor of Delhi, A.I.R. 1982 Supreme Court 1257, to contend that mere existence of the F.I.Rs, cannot constitute a ground for detention under the National Security Act. Following words in paragraph 9 of the report were pressed into service :
"A mere allegation in the report of the Municipal Councillor, without anything more, cannot constitute a ground for detention under the National Security Act There is no allegation in that instance that law enforcement authorities had any valid reason to believe the allegations made in the complaint to be true even while the case registered on that complaint was pending trial and posted to 29101981. There is no allegation in that instance that the building at which stones etc. are alleged to have been thrown is situate in a public place and that alleged act of the detenu and 70 other persons has caused apprehension in the minds of the residents of the locality in regard to maintenance of public order. We are, therefore, unable to hold that this instance has any potentiality to interfere with and has effect upon the public tranquillity and order and that it cannot constitute a ground for detention under the National Security Act, 1980."
Smt. Bimla Dewan''s case (supra) can hardly be of any assistance to the petitioner. It was the quality of a singular act therein, which persuaded the Supreme Court to take the view that the particular incident had no potentiality to interfere with, or to have effect upon, the public tranquillity and order. No such argument has been raised in the instant case that the allegations in any of those F.I.Rs. were of such a nature so as to draw any parallel with Smt. Bimla Dewan''s case (supra). Even the case in which the petitioner claims to have been acquitted was a case of violence. But acquittal in that case would not render the ground to be irrelevant or nonexistent. the learned counsel for the State rightly relied on Haradhan Saha v. The State of West Bengal and others, A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 2154, to contend that an order of preventive detention may he made with or without prosecution and in anticipation or after discharge or even acquittal. Reliance, was also placed on State of Punjab and others v. Jagdev Singh Talwandi, A.I.R. 1984 Supreme Court 444, to contend that, it was not absolutely essential to supply the copies of the F.I.Rs. to the detenu But here as stated by the District Magistrate on affidavit, even copies of those F.I.R. had been supplied to the detenu, which raises a dispute of facts.
The respective contentions of the parties'', in my view, have to be viewed in the light of the National Security (Second Amendment) Ordinance, 1984, which was promulgated on 2161984, adding to the National Security Act section 5A which reads as under :
"5A. Where a person has been detained in pursuance of an order of detention (whether made before or after the commencement of the National Security (Second Amendment) Ordinance, 1984 under section 1 which has been made on two or more grounds, such order of detention shall be deemed to have been made separately on each of such grounds and accordingly :
(a) such order shall not be deemed to be invalid or inoperative merely because one or some of the grounds is or are
(i) vague,
(ii) nonexistent,
(iii) not relevant,
(iv) not connected or not proximately connected with such person, or
(v) invalid for any other reason whatsoever, and if is not, therefore, possible to hold that the Government or Officer making such order would have been satisfied as provided in section 3 with reference to the remaining ground or grounds and made the order of detention;
(b) the Government or officer making the order of detention shall be deemed to have made the order of detention under the said section after being satisfied as provided in that section with reference to the remaining grounds".
Now continuing to deal with ground No. 1, it is a disputed question of fact whether the copies of four F.I.Rs, were supplied to the petitioner or not. Even if the petitioner could validly contend that copies of four F.I.Rs. had not been supplied to him, then for that reason alone the ground could not be held invalid in view of the provisions of section 5A(a)(v). On the same analysis, even if the petitioner was correct in contending that he was acquitted in the case pertaining to F.I.R. No. 31 of 1981 referred at serial No. 4, rendering part of the ground as nonexistent, even then no fault can be found with it in view of Haradhan Saha''s case (supra) and the provisions of section 5A (a) (ii). It was even not the case of a single F.I.R. and without anything more as the expression was employed in Smt. Bimla Dewan''s case (supra) but series of F.I.Rs. subjectively satisfying the detaining authority that the detenu had a consistent criminal record having a predeliction for violating the law and for committing acts of violence. This ground as such, to my mind, was by itself valid and I hold it accordingly. It has otherwise the protection of section 5A, which undisputably is operative retrospectively.
With regard to the second ground, it is to be noticed that the right conferred on all citizens under Article 19 (1) (b) and (C) is not absolute but subject to reasonable restrictions. Sub articles (3) and (4) of Article 19 curtail the right. The State''s power of making and imposing laws reasonably restricting the right conferred in subclauses (b) and (c) of Article 19 (1) is preserved so as to protect the interests of sovereignty and integrity of India or public order and for the purposes of subclause (c) morality as well. In the face of prohibitory orders issued by the State in terms of section 144, Criminal Procedure Code, and the like provisions, it was idle for the petitioner to contend that he could still participate in jathas in defiance of Prohibitory orders in assertion of rights under Article 19 (b) or (c). Besides the petitioner having developed connections with leading members of the Akali Dal to take large jathas to Amritsar in violation of the prohibitory orders and offering arrests provided adequate ground to detain him and that could not be said as irrelevant. The second comment that the ground was vague inasmuch as the time and date had not been mentioned about his involvement with known smugglers and supporters of All India Sikh Students Federation is also baseless for the ground is suggestive of a course of conduct and not of any specific untoward incident. And lastly, the alleged enmity of the petitioner with S. I. Jaskirat Singh, S.H.O. Nurmahal, was the petitioner''s own suggested version. But the secret report of the said S.I., which formed Annexure ''C'' to the grounds of detention, was enough for the detaining authority to come to the subjective satisfaction that the detenu had established connections with the members of the banned organisation of the All India Sikh Students Federation for purposes of rendering them financial help as also training them in the use of arms especially in view of his military background. This ground too appears to me to be validly entertained by the detaining authority and nothing therein can be said irrelevant, vague or nonexistent. I hold it accordingly. Even otherwise it too has the protection of section 5A by itself.
For the foregoing reasons, I am of the considered view that there is no merit in this petition which must fail. It is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs.