SHEOBACHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Article 223 of the Constitution and Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner Sheobachan Singh was arrested on the 5th of August, 1951, and an order of detention was made against him by the District Magistrate of Saxan on the 6th of August, 1951. The grounds of detention were served upon him on the 18th of August, 1951. The order of detention was passed by the District Magistrate under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 (Act IV (4) of 1950), and the grounds of detention under Section 7 of the aforesaid Act were served upon the petitioner.

(2.) Mr. Basanta Chandra Ghose appearing for the petitioner has urged, in the main, that the particulars stated in the grounds of detention against the petitioner referred to past acts which were too remote to justify an order of detention being passed against him. Secondly, he urged that the grounds of detention, which refer to the activities of the Communist Party of India in general, state in paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 a change in the leadership of the Party under B.T. Ranadive to that of Chandra Rajeshwar Rao in the middle of 1950 bringing little change in the highly subversive programme of the party, but that in early 1951 a circular was issued on behalf of the Party to all Party units to the effect that while exploiting the legal possibilities with care and tact, the revolutionary trade unions should orientate towards illegal trade unionism as the principal form of organisation. The grounds further go on to state that a draft programme of the Party was issued which gives the impression that the Party had decided to abjure violence and armed struggle and had taken to only legal methods, but the Government had dependable information that the Party is still definitely of the view that without violence no revolution can take place and consequently it is taking steps not only to continue its under-ground. "Tech" organisation but to strengthen it and tighten it, and in actual practice also it is continuing its orgy of loot, arson and murder in Hyderabad, Andhra, Tripura, Manipur and other places. (2a) Para. 7 of the grounds of detention finally states that it is therefore abundantly clear that the Communist Party of India has now divided the activities on two fronts, an open front where the Party still exploits all legal possibilities, and an illegal front for carrying on armed guerilla struggle in rural areas for the formation of liberation bases and liberation armies. Mr. Ghose contended that it was apparent from the grounds of detention in the above-mentioned paragraphs that even according to Government the Communist Party of India had split its activity into two groups, one to pursue all legal methods to achieve its political ideology and objective, and the other to achieve the same by illegal methods' and force of arms. It was essential, therefore, for the detaining authority to disclose in the grounds of detention to the petitioner as to which group the petitioner belonged; whatever the past activities of the petitioner may have been, he might now belong to that group which follows legal methods for the achievement of the political idealogy of the Communist Party of India. In the particulars of the grounds of detention specifically made against the petitioner, such allegations as are disclosed there refer to his activities at a period when the Communist Party of India did not have as a part of its programme the achievement of its objective by legal and constitutional method. It was essential therefore, for the detaining authority to precisely state as to whether in spite of the decision of the Communist Party of India to achieve its objective by legal and constitutional methods the petitioner still pursued methods which were illegal and unconstitutional. The particulars of the grounds of detention, therefore, were too vague for the petitioner to make a representation against the order of detention made by the District Magistrate.

(3.) On behalf of the State it was urged by Mr. Chakravarty that past conduct of the petitioner could be taken into consideration in order to show that the grounds of detention taken as a whole clearly disclosed material to justify the order 2 detention. So far as the second contention o2 Mr. Ghose was concerned, he urged that in spite of what had been stated in paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of the grounds of detention, the detaining authority was satisfied that if the petitioner was allowed to remain at large, he would indulge in activities to the prejudice of the public safety and the maintenance of public order, and that for prevention of such activities it was necessary to detain him, In other words, the detaining authority was satisfied from the past activities of the petitioner that he was not pursuing legal and constitutional methods for the achievement of the objective of the Communist Party of India. As for the third contention, Mr. Chakravarty contended that there was no tangible material placed before the Court; for supposing that the detention of the petitioner was mala fide and had been done in order to prevent him from standing as a candidate for election to the State Legislature. Finally, Mr, Chakravarty argued that this Court could not sit in appeal over the order of detention made by the detaining authority and hold that that authority was wrongly satisfied that the petitioner should be detained in the interest of public safety and the maintenance of public order.