- (1.)THIS group of writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of writs of Habeas Corpus in the concerned cases, raises questions of the constitutional propriety, legality and good faith of the relevant detention orders made by Government against the writ petitioners (detenus) which are of considerable interest and significance. We might immediately state that, in all the cases, the orders of detention purport to have been issued under Rule 30 (1) (b) and Rule 30 (4) of the Defence of India Rules 1962; in all of them, the Government of Madras state to be satisfied that the detention of the concerned detenu was necessary, in the Ridge v. Baldwin, 1963-2 WLR 935 acting in any manner prejudicial to the defence of India and public safety.
(2.)BEFORE proceeding to a scrutiny of the grounds upon which the orders of detention have been challenged, we might briefly state that Sri M. K. Nambiar has addressed arguments to us challenging the validity of Rule 30 (4), in the context of Section 3 (2) (13) of the Defence of India Act, on grounds of abdication of legislative function or the vice of excessive delegation. Sri M. R. Venkataraman, detenu, has addressed arguments in person on alleged grounds of mala fides or the colourable exercise of power, with regard to the orders of detention, also assailing these orders upon related grounds, such as the detention of the writ petitioners in prison against the spirit and purport of the delegated power, restrictions imposed in violation of Section 44 of the Defence of India Act, the illegality of the subsequent orders of review made without an opportunity given to the detenus to show cause against the continuance of the detention, the service of detention orders in some cases on persons already in jail custody, contrary to laws etc. Sri, V. G. Rao, for certain of the detenus, has also advanced arguments upon subsidiary grounds, and on the facts of some of the individual instances.
(3.)AT the very outset, it is essential to elucidate, with care and precision, the ambit of the power of this Court to interfere with such orders of detention under Article 226 of the Constitution, in the context of the Emergency now prevailing under Article 352, and the Presidential Orders suspending the enforcement of certain Fundamental Rights, by virtue of Arts. 358 and 359. We might immediately add that this matter has received elaborate exposition in four recent decisions of the Supreme Court, namely. (1) Makhan Singh v. State of Punjab (2) Anandas Nambir v. Chief Secy. Govt. of Madras, judgment in WP Nos. 47 and 61 of 1965 : ; (3) A. K. Gopalan v. Govt. of India New Delhi, Judgment in W. A. Nos. 51 and 53 of 1965 : and (4) Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar, W. P. No. 79 of 1965 :. The text of the Proclamation of the President will be found in Basu's Commentary on the Constitution of India, 4th Edn, Volume V page 194, and is as follows: In exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (1) of Article 359 of the Constitution, the President hereby declares that the right of any person to move any court for the enforcement of the right conferred by Art, 14, Article 21 and Article 22 of the Constitution shall remain suspended for the period during which the Proclamation of Emergency issued under Clause (1) of Article 352 thereof on 26th October 1962 is in force, if such person has been deprived of any such rights under the Defence or India Ordinance 1962 (4 of 1962) or any rule or order made thereunder.