Hari Ram vs State of Punjab and others

M.M. Punchhi, J

These two Criminal Writ Petition Nos. 509 of 1984 (Hari Ram v. The State of Punjab and others) and 510 of 1984 (Azad Hind Goyal v. The State of Punjab and others) can conveniently be disposed of by a single order.

The petitioner in the first mentioned petition is the father of Des Raj, detenu, and the petitioner in the other case is a cousin of Prem Chand detenu, detained under section 3(2) read with section 3(3) of the National Security Act, 1980, under orders of the District Magistrate, Patiala, with a view to prevent each detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The respective detention orders in each case are near exactly similar and so are the grounds of detention, Annexure P.2. Challenge has been made in these petitions to the detention orders as also to the grounds in support thereof, on a number of grounds, but before the two projected before me are dealt with, it would be appropriate to take note of the grounds of detention as contained in Annexure P.2 appended with Criminal Writ Petition No. 509 of 1984 :

"In pursuance of the provision of Section 8(1) of the National Security Act, 1980 and for the purposes of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, you Shri Des Raj s/o Hari Ram Mahajan r/o Patran Mandi P.S. Patran, District Patiala, is hereby informed that you have been detained u/s 3(2) read with section 3(3) of the Act ibid vide detention order No. 1059/Peshi, dated 2.7.1984 on the grounds that you have been including in activities prejudicial to the Maintenance of Public JUDGMENT as is clear from the facts stated in the following paragraphs :

(i) The report of S.H.O/Patran dated 19.6.1984 reveals that you Shri Des Raj s/o Hari Ram Mahajan r/o Patran Mandi had been propagating among Hindus ever since the Army action against the extremists of 6.6.84 at Patran Mandi and in the villages that Bhindranwala was a bad character and was also harbouring other bad characters wanted in many cases of robberies and dacoities and who had killed their innocent and unarmed Hindu brethren, due to this. We all the Hindus got prepared to leave the Punjab. You further told them that Bhindranwala and his followers who were their enemies had been killed in army action at Amritsar so let us arm ourselves and take revenge for the murder of Hindu brethren. You also told them that let us kill four times more sikhs as compared with the number of the killed Hindus. You also stated that it was high time of taking revenge and to make the Sikhs leave Punjab by force for Pakistan in order to convert Punjab into a Hindu State.

(ii) A copy of the application u/s 107/151 Cr.P.C. discloses that on 20.6.1984 a police party of P.S. Patran comprising H.C. Mangtar Singh No. 1745 and H.C. Piara Lal No. 1820 besides two constables were on patrol duty near Bus Stand Patran and when it reached at the Octroi post near Bus Stand one Hazara Singh s/o Dalip Singh Jat r/o Hariao Deska, complainant came to H.C. Mangtar Singh No. 1745 and made the following statement :

"I belong to village Hariao Deska and serving in Truck Union as a Sewadar. Today when I went to Jakhal road Kanchian for the purchase of some articles, I saw Des Raj s/o Hari Ram and Prem Chand s/o Des Raj resident of Patran propagating among the Hindu in general that Bhindranwala was not a good man since bad characters used to go and live with him. He (Bhindranwala) used to kill Hindus without any rhyme or reason. We should now take revenge for the killed Hindus and collect arms. Every Hindu would collect arms as it is high time for taking revenge for the killed Hindu brethren. Let us join hands for the murder of Sikhs so as to force them to run away to Pakistan in order to make it a Hindu State. In Punjab, Hindus are in majority while Sikhs are in minority. I being faithful to the Govt. told them and that Sikhs have done no wrong to them and that they should not indulge in such like provocative talks. On this they manhandled me and started abusing me. I could save myself only by repeated entreaties before them."

The police party acting on the said statement reached the spot and tried to persuade you and Shri Prem Chand son of Shri Des Raj not to indulge in the aforesaid activities but both of them tried to assault said Hazara Singh even in the presence of the police and started raising slogan like :

(i) Hindu Suraksha SamitiZindabad

(ii) Sikh quamMurdabad

Finding no other alternative to prevent you from indulging in the aforesaid manner H.C. Mangtar Singh with the help of his party arrested both of you u/s 107/151 Cr. P.C and both of you are now confined in Sub Jail, Malerkotla District Sangrur.

"On account of the above said activities and on being satisfied that it is necessary to prevent you from acting in a manner prejudicial to the Maintenance of Public order. I have passed an order for your detention with a view to preventing you from acting in the aforesaid manner in future, in case you are released on bail or otherwise in the case u/s 107/151 Cr.P.C. of P.S. Patran, in which you are presently confined in Sub Jail, Malerkotla, Distt, Sangrur.

The grounds of detention were supplied to the detenus in Punjabi (Gurmukhi script) and an English translation thereof alongwith the supporting material forming the basis of the grounds of detention on 2nd July, 1984.

The challenge made on behalf of the detenu is that both the grounds of detention are irrelevant and vague and thus on that score the detention order was invalid. Secondly it has been maintained that the detention order was served in Punjabi (Gurmukhi script) but the detenus were literate in Hindi (Devnagri script). Additionally, it was urged that the detenus had very little education of English language and the English translation supplied to them did not serve the purpose for making them understand the grounds of detention and thus there was failure to comply with the requirements of the Indian Constitution as laid down in clause (5) of Article 22.

With regard to the first point about the irrelevant and vagueness of the grounds, it is to be seen from ground No.1 that a report was made by S. H.O. Police Station Patran on 19th June, 1984, pertaining to activities of the each respective detenu that he had been propagating objectionably ever since the Army action against the extremists on 6th June, 1984 (one of them at Patran Mandi and the other not only at Patran Mandi but in the neighbouring villages also). There was obviously a span of 13 days in the interval. No date has been mentioned in the report as to when each detenu, individually or collectively, had been making objectionable propaganda as also the time when such activities were indulged in. It is mere allegation in the report of the S.H.O. without anything more. This loose allegation to my mind, cannot constitute a ground of detention under the National Security Act. There is no clear cut allegation that the law enforcing authorities had any valid reasons to believe what was attributed to the detenus, or that the objectionable utterances had been made in public. Thus, I have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the first ground of detention is utterly vague and must be held onexisting.

With regard to the second ground of detention, it would be seen that whatever were the objectionable utterances mentioned in the first ground, the same stand repeated in the report to the police allegedly made in the application of Hazara Singh son of Dalip Singh. An affidavit purporting to be of the same Hazara Singh has been appended with the petition as Annexure P.6 to advance the argument that no such report was intentionally made by him but stands explained that the police had obtained thumb impressions on blank papers so as to fabricate his statement. Had the report been simply there and not anything more this material too could be carried away by the sweep as first ground of detention. But here the authorities on recording the statement of Hazara Singh reached the spot and tried to persuade both the detenus not to indulge in the aforesaid authorities. But the detenus allegedly then tried to assault the said Hazar Singh even in the presence of the policy party and started raising the slogans like `Hindu Suraksha Samiti Zindabad and Sikh Quam Murdabad''. This means that the police did not consider the report of Hazara Singh to be untrue and on the basis thereof went to the spot where the two detenus were said to be indulging in objectionable activities. Thought the assault to Hazar Singh could create some disorder but that would not, to my mind, affect public order. A line of demarcation between serious and aggravated forms of disroder which directly affected the community or injure the public interests the relatively minor branches of peace of a purely local character concerning specific individual, has to be drawn. This ground too upto this extent, appears to me irrelevant for the purposes of detaining the detenus in order to prevent them from indulging activities prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. But that is not the end of it, it is the slogans attributed to the detenus made at the time when the atmosphere in the State of Punjab after the Army action at Amritsar, stood surcharged. Their slogans proclaiming victory for `Hindu Suraksha Samiti (an organisation which the District Magistrate terms in paragraph 30 (vii) of his counter affidavit, as a body of communal fanatics) and wishing doom to the Sikh community, was likely to disturb the public order, and this incident per se was a valid reasons for the District Magistrate to detain the detenus. On this ground alone, the detention order is not capable of challenge; more so in view of the National Security (Second Amendment) Ordinance, 1984, replaced by an Act whereunder an order of detention shall not be deemed to be invalid or inoperative merely because one or some of the grounds are vague, nonexistent, norrelevant, not connected, or approximately connected with such person, or invalid for any other reasons whatsoever. The vagueness of the first ground and the partial vagueness of the second ground, compartmentalized as hereto fore, would not stand in the way of upholding the detention order. I hold it accordingly.

The second attack to the detention order is about the requirements of Article 22(5) of the Constitution. It is noticeable that when the grounds were served on the detenus on 4th July, 1984, they received them in Gurmukhi script and English language, without any demur. At the time no question was raised by them. Even within reasonable period, no such demand was made by them that the grounds supplied to them, did not serve their purpose. It is only as late as on 21st September, 1984, that the demand was made for the grounds in Hindi claiming it to be the mother tongue of the detenus. It has nowhere been alleged that the detenus were born or brought up at any other place other than in Punjab. Thus, it seems to me that the ground as raised, is an afterthought merely to form a basis for the petitions. I hold that attacking the detention order on the language question, is benifit of any merit.

For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in these petitions, which accordingly fail and are hereby dismissed but without any offer as to costs.