Natarajan, J. - (1.)THIS petition has been filed for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus for causing the production of the body of Thiru M. Ramaswamy, Editor of a Tamil fortnightly journal Called 'Hindu Marumalarchi", who is in custody and for his being set at liberty. The petitioner is the wife of the abovesaid Ramaswamy.
(2.)RAMASWAMY was taken into custody on 18th June, 1982 pursuant to an order of detention passed by the second respondent (District Magistrate and District Collector (in -charge), Salem), earlier that day under S. 3(2) of the National Security Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act. He was served with the grounds of detention on 20th June, 1982. On 25th June, 1982 the detenu sent his representations and they were rejected by the Government on 6th July, 1982. The case of the detenu was placed before the Advisory Committee and they sustained the order of detention passed, and thereupon the Government passed on order of confirmation of the detention on 3rd August, 1982. It is thereafter the petitioner has moved this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.
. 3. In the grounds of detention, it is set out that in the issue, dt. 15th March, 1982 of the journal "Hindu Marumalarchi", the detenu had criticised the incidents that took place at Mandaikkadu Village in Kanyakumari District in favour of the Hindus and condemning the Christians, and the publication was "likely to create religious hatred among the people of Salem and other places in Tamil Nadu and affect communal harmony". It is also stated that with reference to the publication, a case was registered against the detenu in Salem Town, P.S. Crl. No. 511/82 under S. 153(a) of the I.P.C. on 7th April, 1982. After extracting the relevant passages which are said to be inflammatory in nature, it is stated in the grounds that when there is communal upheaval in Tirunelveli District and the consequent tension in other parts of the State, the publication by the detenu of the inflammatory article was likely to create religious hatred among the people of Salem and other places in Tamil Nadu and affect communal harmony and as such, the permitting of the detenu to remain at large would prove a hazard to security. The second respondent has, therefore, stated that he was subjectively satisfied that the detenu had been acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and hence, his detention under the Act was considered imminent and necessary.

4. In the writ petition, the validity and correctness of the detention order is challenged on various grounds. They are as set out below:

1. The second respondent is not a competent authority to pass the detention order because, under S. 3(3) of the Act, only the District Magistrate notified as such is empowered to pass an order of detention and that being so, neither a District Magistrate in -charge nor an Additional District Magistrate is empowered to exercise the power of the District Magistrate.

2. In the grounds of detention, there is no reference to any communal disturbances having taken place within the limits of Salem District, but there is reference only to communal upheaval in Tirunelveli District and in such circumstances, the District Magistrate of Salem who is empowered to take steps for maintenance of public order within the limits of Salem District alone, is not entitled to pass the impugned order of detention.

The delegation of powers on the District Magistrate of Salem by the Government under S. 3(3) of the Act has been mechanically done at regular intervals of three months from 23rd December, 1980 onwards and as such, the power conferred on the District Magistrate by the last Government Order, dt. 23rd March, 1982 was not a valid order of delegation.

(3.)THE instance complained of against the detenu is a solitary instance and on the basis of this slender material, no reasonable person could reach a subjective satisfaction for passing an order of detention under the Act. In -any case, the detenu was enlarged on bail in the criminal case filed against him, subject to certain conditions and one of the conditions was that he should not publish similar articles and in view of that interdiction, there could be no apprehension in the mind of the District Magistrate that the detenu was likely to write further inflammatory articles and pose a hazard to the maintenance of public order.