S.Mohinder Singh Saianwala vs State of Punjab and another

J.M. Tandon, J.—Mohinder Singh Saianwala petitioner has been detained under section 3(2) read with section 2(3) and section 14A of the National Security Act by District Magistrate, Ferozepur, vide order dated June 18, 1984, (P.1). He has also been supplied the grounds of his detention. The petitioner has assailed his detention in the present writ petition.

The relevant part of the impugned detention order dated June 18, 1984, (P.I) reads :

Whereas, I Inderjit Singh, I.A.S., District Magistrate, Ferozepur, am satisfied with respect to Shri Mohinder Singh son of Fateh Singh, resident of Baghdadi Gate, Ferozepur City, District Ferozepur, who has been arrested in case F.I.R. No. 196 dated May 27, 1984, under sections 25/54/59, Arms Act. P.S. Makhu and F.I.R. No. 243 dated May 28, 1984, under sections 124A, 153A, Indian Penal Code, P.S. Zira and presently is in judicial custody in the above noted case and with a view of preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the security of Sate and maintenance of public order, it is necessary to detain him.

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred upon me under section 3(2) read with section 3(3) and section 14A of the National Security Act, 1980. I hereby order directing that the said Mohinder Singh be arrrested and detained in Central Jail, Ferozpur. This detention order has been passed by me being conscious of the fact that Mohinder Singh is already in custody because he is likely to be released on bail and in that eventuality he is likely to indulge in the said prejudicial activities as detailed in the grounds of detention."

3.The ground of detention of the petitioner supplied to him reads :

"That on 28.5.1984 you were brought to Zira for being produced before the llaqa Magistrate in connection with a case F.I.R. No 196 dated 25.5.1984. Police Station Makhu under sections 25/54/59 Arms Act. In the compound of the Court you raised slogans "Khalistan Zindabad `Bhai Amrik Singh Zindabad'' and `Sikh'' Students Federation Zindabad'' and as a result of this 40/50 spectators assembled there. You started delivering speech to them stating that B.S.F., C.R.P.F., P.A.P. and Punjab Police had murdered many Sikhs in Amritsar, Ferozepur, Moga, Fazilka, Abhohar and in different cities of Punjab. You further exhorted those assembled personal saying that we would take revenge of those murders by killing the personal of Police, C.R.P.F., B.S.F. and the Hindus". You further proclaimed that due to this, Railway Stations and other Government Institutions were set afire. You further stated that you would continue acts of such burning and cause other explosions till the demands are accepted. You further declared that continuation of the Morcha for the last two years did not have any effect upon the Government during which thousands of Sikhs have sacrificed their lives. Now the time has come when you should live after having a separate State `Khalistan'' the flag and the Constitution of which will be separate. From today onwards neither any order of the Government is to be obeyed nor any taxes are to be paid. You also declared that Your''s is a separate Nation from the Hindustan and that on account of the ban imposed on All India Sikh Students Federation the Government was facing the consequences. You also said that your next programme will be so disastrous that for one person, eight police officials would be killed and that Hindus would themselves leave Punjab and thus you would establish your sovereign State. All this was done by you when you were in Police custody for which a case F.I.R No. 243 dated 28.5.1984 under Section 124A and 153A I.P.C. Police Station Zira was registered against you and is under investigation."

The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the order of detention of the petitioner is liable to be set aside on the ground of mala fide on the part of Shri Puran Chand Dogra, D.I.G. Police, Ferozepur. The argument proceeds that in 1978 the petitioner was M.P. and Shri Puran Chand Dogra, Superintendent of Police at Ferozepur. There were complaints against Shri Puran Chand Dogra. The petitioner got him transferred on account of many complaints against him. Shri Puran Chand Dogra knew that the petitioner had got him transferred from Ferozepur. He nurse a grudge against the petitioner on that account. In June, 1984, Shri Puran Chand was posted as D.I.G. Police at Ferozepur. It was on account of mala fide on the part of Shri Puran Chand Dogra and at his instance that the District Magistrate, Ferozepur, passed the impugned detention order against the petitioner. The contention is without merit.

Shri Puran Chand Dogra has submitted his affidavit averring that he remained posted as S.S.P. Special Branch, C.I.D. Punjab. The petitioner was not instrumental in getting him transferred from Ferozepur. He did not harbour any grudge against the petitioner or his family members. Shri Inderjit Singh, Distirict Magistrate, who passed the impugned detention order has averred in his separate affidavit that Shri Puran Chand Dogra did not talk to him about the detention of the petitioner or his son. He himself made his own subjective satisfaction from the facts of the file for the detention of the petitioner and his son Harpreet Singh. In view of the affidavits of Shri Puran Chand, D.I.G. and the District Magistrate (Shri Inderjit Singh), there is hardly any scope to infer that the petitioner has been detained under the National Security Act at the instance of Puran Chand Dogra or on account of mala fide on his part.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the allegation contained in the grounds of detention is absolutely false. The petitioner had been arrested in Arms Act case on May 27, 1984, and he was taken to Zira on May 28, 1984, for being produced before the Ilaqa Magistrate. According to the ground of petitioner''s detention he made an objectionable speech in the Court compound at Zira while in police custody on May 28, 1984. The petitioner is a responsible citizen. He is an ExMember of Parliament. He is a law abiding citizen. It is highly improbable that he would make such a speech in the Court compound and that too while in police custody. It is again highly improbable that the policemen would have allowed him to make such a speech in the Court compound. The entire allegation against the petitioner, as contained in the grounds of detention is false. The detention of the petitioner is liable to be set aside.

The Assistant Advocate General has contended that the veracity of the grounds of detention of the petitioner cannot be gone into in the present habeas corpuS proceedings. Reliance has been placed on Giani Bakshish Singh v. Govt of India and others, A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 2667.

Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have made the following observation in Giani Bakshish Singh''s case (supra) :

"Mr Garg did not seek to argue nor could he argue any of the grounds given for the appellants''s detention were vague or irrelevant. It is now settled law that preventive detention is not a punishment for the past activities of a person but is intended to prevent the person detained from indulging in future in activities which may produce the results mentioned in section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act. It is also well settled that the Court will not go into the truth or otherwise of the facts alleged as grounds of detention. The sufficiency of the grounds for detention is not also a matter which the Court will go into. There can also be no doubt that the appellant''s activities detailed in grounds (a) to (c) bring his case squarely within the ambit of subclauses (i) and (ii) of clause (a) of subsection (1) of section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act."

In view of the lucid observation of their Lordships of the Supreme Court, the truth or otherwise of the facts alleged in the ground of detention of the petitioner cannot be gone into these proceedings. The allegation made in the ground of detention has a nexus with the detention of the petitioner.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner was involved in an Arms Act case on May 27, 1984, and F.I.R. No. 196 dated May 27, 1984, was registered. Similarly, F.I.R. No. 243 dated May 28, 1984, P.S. Zira, was registered against him regarding his alleged speech made on that date by him in the Court compound at Zira. After the case had been registered against the petitioner on May 28, 1984, under sections 124A and 153A, Indian Penal Code, he could not be detained on June 18, 1984, under the National Security Act. The contention is without merit. The detention of the petitioner under the National Security Act is surely not by way of punishment for his past activities. The object of detention of a person under the National Security Act is to prevent him from indulging in future in any activity which may produce the results mentioned in sections 3 of the National Security Act. The registration of case against the petitioner under section 124A and section 153A, Indian Penal Code, on May 28, 1984, cannot be taken as a bar for his detention under the National Security Act on June 18, 1984. In this context it is immaterial that the petitioner was allowed bail in Arms Act case on June 16, 1984, and in case under sections 124A and 153A, Indian Penal Code on June 20, 1984.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that petitioner has not been supplied the entire material which the detaining authority had taken into consideration while ordering his detention. The argument proceeds that the report on the basis of which a case under section 25 of the Arms Act was registered against the petitioner on May 27, 1984, has not been supplied to the petitioner. The detention of the petitioner is liable to be set aside on this ground. The contention is without force. It is evident from the ground of detention supplied to the petitioner that the petitioner has been detained solely on the basis of his speech allegedly made in the Court compound at Zira on May 28, 1984. The detaining authority did not take into consideration the involvement of the petitioner under the Arms Act case on May 27, 1984. The petitioner has been supplied a copy of F.I.R. No. 196 dated May 27, 1984, P.S. Makhu under section 25 of the Arms Act. It is in this case that he had been taken to Zira on June 28, 1984, for being produced before the Ilaqa Magistrate. The petitioner, therefore cannot justifiably assail his detention on the ground that he has not been supplied a copy of the report on the basis of which a case under section 25 of the Arms Act had been registered against him on May 27, 1984.

Another point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that assuming that the petitioner did make the alleged speech on May 28, 1984, in the Court compound at Zira on May 28,1984, it did not prejudice the maintenance of public order with the result that the petitioner could not be detained on the basis thereof. The contention is without force.The text and the tenor of the speech alleged to have been made by the petitioner on May 28,1984, does prejudicially affect the maintenance of public order and he could be validly detained under section 3 of the National Security Act on the basis thereof.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that no foundation has been laid either in the detention order or the grounds of detention or in the written statements filed by the respondents to indicate that the alleged speech made by the petitioner had any adverse effect on the 40/50 persons who heard him. The petitioner could not be detained under the National Security Act on the basis of his alleged speech without any such adverse effect on the audience. I am not impressed by this contention. The alleged speech made by the petitioner was prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and he could be justifiably detained under the National Security Act on the basis thereof.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the detention of the petitioner is bad for want of faithful and proper compliance of subsection (4) and (5) of section 3 of the Act. The contention is without force. The District Magistrate has averred in his affidavit that the State Government in exercise of power conferred in subsection in (4) of section 3 of the National Security Act, approved the detention of the petitioner on June 28,1984. The learned Assistant Advocate General stated during arguments that the District Magistrate despatched the communication under sections 3(4) of the Act on June 25, 1984, and the State Government approved the detention of the petitioner on June 28,1984. The requisite communication as required under section 3(5) of the Act was sent by the Secretary to Government, Home Department, Punjab, on July 4,1984, (R.3). It is clear that there has been a due compliance of the provisions contained in section 3(4) and (5) of the Act.

In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed.