John Beaumont, J. -
(1.)THIS is an appeal by special leave from an order of the High Court of Judicature at Nagpur made on September 29, 1944. The order was made by the High Court in purported exercise of the powers conferred on it by Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which enables High Courts to take action in the nature of habeas corpus. The order directed that the second respondent, Purushottam Yeshwant Deshpande, (hereinafter called "the detenu"), should be set at liberty forthwith on the ground that his detention was illegal. In granting special leave to appeal, the Board imposed the two following conditions: (1) That the detenu should not in any event be re-arrested in respect of the matters to which the appeal relates, and (2) That the petitioner should pay the costs as between solicitor and client incurred by the respondents both in opposing the petition and in the appeal.
(2.)AT the outset counsel for the respondents contended that no appeal was competent. That such a contention is open at the hearing of an appeal, notwithstanding that special leave has been given without reserving express power to challenge the competency of the appeal, was established by two decisions of this Board, Zahid Husain v. Mohammad. Ismael (No.2) (1930) L. R. 57 I. A. 186: S. C. 32 Bom. L. R. 1150 and Mukhlal Singh v. Kishuni Singh (1930) I. L. R. 57 I. A. 279: S. C. 32 Bom. L. R. 1576. In support of his argument that the appeal is incompetent counsel relied mainly on the well-known case of Cox v. Hakes (1890) 15 App. Cas. 506, and a recent decision of this' Board, King-Emperor v. Sibnath Bonerji (1945) L. R. 72 I. A. 241: S. C. 48 Bom. L. R. 1. In Cox v. Hakes, the House of Lords decided that in England no appeal lay from an order of discharge made on the return to a writ of habeas corpus. The question turned primarily on the construction of Section 19: of the Judicature Act, 1873. In their speeches, both Lord Halsbury and Lord Herschell noticed two decisions of the Privy Council, ATtorney-General for the Colony of Hong-Kong v. Kwok-A-Sing (1873) L. R. 5. P. C. 179 and The Quedn v. Mount (1875) L. R. 6 P. C. 283, and pointed out that special considerations applied to appeals from Colonial Courts in which the Privy Council was tendering advice to His Majesty as to the exercise of the prerogative. The case of Kkig-Emperor v. Sibnath Banerji was one in which an appeal lay from an order; of discharge made) by a High Court in India under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the Federal Court under Section 205 of the Government of India Act, 11935, and from the Federal Court to the Privy Council under Section 208, and it was held that the rule in Cox v. Hakes had no application to such a case. In the present case, however, no appeal lay to the Federal Court under the Government of India Act, 1935, since no question was involved as to the interpretation of the Act or any Order-in-Council made thereunder, and the question for decision is whether an appeal lies direct to the Privy Council from an order of a High Court discharging a person from custody under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The broad principle which must determine this question is that appeals from decisions of Courts in the British Dominions and Dependencies to the King in Council are heard under the Royal Prerogative, and that the prerogative can only be curtailed by force of an Act of Parliament, that is, by the King in Parliament, There is no Act of Parliament which prohibits, or authorises the prohibition of, an appeal to His Majesty in Council by a party aggrieved against an order discharging from custody under Section 491 of, the Code of Criminal Procedure. In their Lordships' opinion, therefore, the preliminary objection fails.
Dealing with the merits of the matter, their Lordships' think that the questions for decision lie within a narrow compass and depend on the construction of Rule 129 of the Defence of India Rules, 1939, with which must be read Rule 26.It will be convenient at the outset to set out the relevant provisions of those rules. Rule 129. (1) Any police officer. . . . may arrest without warrant any person whom he reasonably suspects of having acted. . . . (a ). . . in a manner prejudicial to the public safety or to the efficient prosecution of war. (2) Any officer who makes an arrest in pursuance of Sub-rule (1) shall forthwith report the fact of such arrest to the Provincial Government, and, pending the receipt of the orders of the Provincial Government, may, subject to the provisions of Sub-rule (3), by order in writing, commit any person so arrested to such custody as the Provincial Government may by general or special order specify: Provided (i) that no person shall be detained in custody under this sub-rule for a period exceeding fifteen days without the order of the Provincial Government; and (ii) that no person shall be detained in custody under this sub-rule for a period exceeding two months. (4) On receipt of any report made under the provisions of Sub-rule (/?), the Provincial Government may, in addition to making such order, subject to the second proviso to Sub-rule (2), as may appear to be necessary for the temporary custody of any person arrested under this rule, make, in exercise of any power conferred on it by any law for; the time being in force, such final order as to his detention, release, residence or any other matter concerning him as may appear to the said Government in the circumstances of the case to be reasonable or necessary. " " Rule 25.(1) The Central Government or the Provincial Government, if it is satisfied with respect to any particular person that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the defence of British India, the public safety, the maintenance of public order, His Majesty's relations- with, foreign powers or Indian States, the maintenance of peaceful conditions in tribal areas, or the efficient prosecution of the war it is necessary so to do, may make an order: (b) directing that he be detained;
The relevant facts giving rise to this appeal can be briefly stated: (a) On August 21, 1944, the detenu was arrested pursuant to an order given by the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, under Rule 129. The arrest was made by a police-officer, K. C. Diwakar. (b) On August 22, under an order signed by the said K. C. Diwakar, the detenu was committed to the custody of the Superintendent, Central Gaol, Nagpur. The order was expressed to be made under the powers conferred by Sub-rule (2) of Rule 129. (c) On August 23, a report of the arrest was made to the Provincial Government as required by Sub-rule (2 ). (d) On August 26, the Provincial Government, purporting to act under Sub-rule (4) of Rule 129, directed that the detenu be detained in police custody for a period expiring on September 4, 1944. (e) On September 2, 1944, the Provincial Government, purporting to act under Sub-rules (2) and (4) of Rule 129, directed that the detenu should be detained in police custody for a further period of fifteen days from September 5, 1944. A further order was made by Government on September 19, 1944, for a further extension of the period of detention, but as this order was made after the hearing in the High Court, such order cannot affect the position. (f) In the meantime, namely, on August 25, the detenu's wife, who is the first respondent, made application to the High Court under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, complaining that the detention of the detenu was illegal and improper. This application was supported by certain affidavits made by Waman Deshpande, a nephew of the detenu, alleging, amongst other things, that the detenu had been interrogated by the police whilst in prison, that he had been questioned only about one Inamdar, a former employee of the detenu, who (was alleged to have been concerned in a dacoity committed in the Province of Bombay, and that no questions were ever put to the detenu about any activities which could have brought him within the operation of Rule 129 of the Defence of India Rules. (g) No evidence was filed by the police-officer who arrested the detenu, or by the Deputy Inspector-General of Police on whose orders the arrest was made, and the only evidence filed on behalf of the Provincial Government dealing with the grounds of suspicion against the detenu was an affidavit sworn by the Chief Secretary of the Provincial Government on September 10, 1944, which said that the report of the arrest of the detenu had been received by the Provincial Government on August 23, and that it revealed reasonable grounds for suspecting that the detenu was actively associated with certain persons engaged in underground activities calculated to prejudice the public safety and efficient prosecution of the war, and in the opinion of the Provincial Government there were reasons to suspect that they had already acted in a manner which had prejudiced the public safety. It will be noticed that this affidavit contains no allegation that the detenu himself had been engaged in any subversive activities, or even that he was aware of such activities on the part of his associates. (h) The application was heard by the High Court of Nagpur on September 11, and judgment was given on September 29, holding that the detention of the detenu was illegal, and directing that he be set at liberty forthwith.
(3.)THE two questions which in their Lordships' view arise on this appeal are: (i) Where a police-officer makes an arrest under Rule 129 (1) of the Defence of. India Rules, is he bound to prove to the satisfaction of a Court before whom the arrest is challenged that he had reasonable grounds of suspicion ? (ii) If he is so bound and fails to discharge the burden laid upon him, is an order made by the Provincial Government under Rule 129 (4) for the temporary custody of a person arrested valid notwithstanding that the arrest was invalid ?
Upon the first question it is important to notice the differences between Rule 26 and Rule 129. Under the former rule an order of detention can be made only by the Central or Provincial Government, though this power may be delegated under the Defence of India Act; and the Government may make an order of detention if it is satisfied with respect to any particular person that, with a view to preventing him from indulging in the subversive activities specified, it is necessary so to do. It is to be noticed that the Government must be satisfied, mere suspicion is not enough, but there is no qualifying adverb such as " reasonably " or " honestly " attached to the word " satisfied. " On the other hand, under Rule 129, any police-officer can arrest on mere suspicion, but the suspicion must be reasonable, the exact words being " any person whom he reasonably suspects". As the High Court noticed in their judgment, the House of Lords, in the case of Shearer v. Shields  A. C. 808 had to construe a provision in the Glasgow Police Act authorising constables to arrest if they had reasonable grounds of suspicion, and the House held that the burden rested upon the constable concerned to show that his suspicion was reasonable and his act therefore justified. Their Lordships think that the same result must follow under Rule 129. Reliance was placed by the appellant on Liversidge v. Sir John Anderson  A. C. 206, but as the High Court again noticed, there are two very material distinctions between the case and the present one. In the first place, the authority empowered to arrest under the Defence of the Realm Act is a high officer of State, namely, the Home Secretary, and not a mere police-officer; and in the second place the House of Lords was impressed with the obvious inconvenience and danger to the public which might ensue if the Home Secretary was bound to disclose confidential information on which he had acted. In India this danger is very largely mitigated by the existence of Rule 26, under which the Government can act whenever it is satisfied as to the matters mentioned in the rule. Cases in India under the Defence of India Rules which may involve disclosure of secret and confidential information will arise only in cases lying in the border-land between the Police being suspicious> , and Government being satisfied, as to a person's subversive activities, and such cases are hardly likely in practice to be either numerous or serious.