- (1.) "Whereas the Central Government is satisfied that with a view to preventing Shri P. L.. Lakhanpal ....from acting in any manner prejudicial to the defence of India, and civil defence, public safety and the maintenance of public order, it is necessary that he should be detained." On December 24, 1965 he filed a writ petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution in this Court for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his detention inter alia on the grounds that Rule 30 (1) (b) was ultra vires S. 3 (2) (15) (i) of the Defence of India Act, l962, that Rule 23 of the Defence of India (Delhi Detenus) Rules, 1964 gave him a right to make a representation by providing a review of the said detention order and also by providing that a detenu will be allowed to interview a legal practitioner for the purpose of drafting his representation and that his said right was violated by his being prevented from making such a representation, that the said order violated S. 44 inasmuch as though he was an editor of a newspaper action against him was not taken as such editor as provided by that Section and certain other provisions in the Act resulting in the invalidity of the said order and that the said order was mala fide as the Union Home Minister had failed to file an affidavit swearing as to his satisfaction although the petition contained specific allegations denying such satisfaction. That petition W. P. No. 47 of 1966: (AIR 1967 SC 243) was heard and was dismissed on April 19, 1966 rejecting the aforesaid contentions. On June 11, 1966 the Central Government passed an order continuing the said detention order under R. 30 -A (9). But whereas the Order of December 10, l965 directed the petitioner's detention with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the Defence of India and Civil defence, public safety and the maintenance of public order the said order continuing his detention set out only the defence of India and civil defence. Likewise, though the original order described the petitioner as the son of the late Shri Diwan Chand Sharma, editor of the Evening View residing at etc., the order of June 11, 1966 simply described him as the son of the late Shri Diwan Chand Sharma. This difference probably was and had to be made as by reason of his detention he was no longer editing the said newspaper and was no longer residing at the address set out in the original order.
(2.) In the present petition the petitioner challenges both the orders on the following grounds:- (i) that there is no valid order of detention under any of the provisions or the Act or the Rules made thereunder; (ii) that his continued detention under the order of June 11, l966 was in contravention of Rule 23 of the Defence of India (Delhi Detenus) Rules, 1964 inasmuch as he was denied the right of representation by a letter of the Deputy Secretary in the Ministry of Home Affairs dated December 27, 1965; (iii) that the detention was punitive and not preventive as the principal ground of his detention viz., his writings in his said paper, had ceased to be the ground since the said paper had become defunct, the requisite declaration in respect thereof having lapsed; (iv) that the said detention order contravened Section 44 of the Act, and (v) that the orders of detention and continuation were illegal as they were mala fide and made without any application of mind by the Home Minister; consequently there was no satisfaction as required by S. 3 and R. 30 (1) (b).
(3.) Contentions 2, 4 and part of contention 5 in so far as they concern the original order of detention no longer survive as they were disposed of by the decision in W. P. 47 of 1966. The petitioner therefore cannot be permitted to reagitate the same questions, it not being his case that any new circumstances have arisen justifying their reagitation. Contention No. 3 also cannot be sustained because the affidavit clearly shows that the detention was ordered not only because of his writings in the said newspaper but that the said two orders were made after taking into consideration the over-all picture of his activities. Annexure D to the petition is the affidavit of B. S. Raghavan, Deputy Secretary in the Ministry of Home Affairs, filed in the previous petition. In that affidavit it was clearly stated that the activities of the petitioner "do conclusively prove that the petitioner is a pro-pakistani and anti-Indian"; that "there was material before the Union Home Minister about the prejudicial activities of the petitioner and he was satisfied that it was necessary to detain the petitioner" and that "it was the anti-national activities of the petitioner that was responsible for his detention." That affidavit also stated that "the petitioner's activities were sufficient in themselves to enable the Central Government to come to the conclusion that if the petitioner was not detained he was likely to act in a manner prejudicial to the defence of India, civil defence, public safety and the maintenance of public order". In the return filed in the present petition also the same officer has once again stated that "he (the petitioner) is a pro-Pakistani agitator acting against the integrity and the solidarity of India. The history of the activities of the petitioner shows that he is a pro-Pakistani propagandist and seeks to undermine the unity and integrity of India and has close contacts and associations with elements which seek to encourage force and violence in relation to Kashmir. The petitioner has been in constant touch with the representatives of foreign powers in India, inimical towards India." Para 4 of the return also states that he "is a paid pro-Pakistani and anti-Indian." It is true that the deponent in his counter-affidavit in the previous petition had relied on certain extracts culled out from the petitioner's writings but those extracts as stated by the deponent were in answer to the petitioner's claim that he was a journalist and an editor. But assuming that the petitioner's writings were relied on for the purpose of passing the original order, it is manifest that they were not the only materials on which the order was based and the authorities had taken into consideration the over-all picture of all his activities. If that be so the fact that his paper has now become defunct would make no difference and it cannot consequently be held that the order is punitive and not preventive. This leaves the first and part of his fifth contention for consideration.;