Madan Mohan Lal, J. - (1.) THIS is a habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by Bhullu alias Jahoor against an order of detention dated 19-5-1987 passed by the District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar under section 3 (2) of the National Security Act.
(2.) ACCORDING to the grounds of detention, which were served along with the detention order, the petitioner on 4-5-1987 at about 10 p. m. was sitting in his shop situate in Mohalla Ludhaura, Police Station Colonelganj, Kanpur City in front of a mosque. Some Muslims after making prayer in the mosque were standing there. One Mahesh and Munna, abusing and quarrelling with each other, reached there. At that time the petitioner asked both those persons as to why they were fighting on which Mahesh, after abusing the petitioner, said as to why he was interfering with them. The petitioner then started inciting the Muslims who were assembled there and asked them that the Hindus were qafirs and during Ramzan they caused interference in their Namaz and " Travi " and they, by making a temple, had taken possession over Babri Mosque as well. As a result of the said incitation the Muslims started pelting stones on Hindus, who were present there, and also on the houses belonging to Hindus. The petitioner, along with his companions, by sprinkling kerosene set fire to a taxi No. UTI 6176, belonging to Munna Lal, which was parked in front of Shanker Ji Temple. Rioting then took place between Muslims and Hindus which resulted in pelting stones, arson, firing and destruction of properties. The residents of the locality became terrorised and rushed to their houses and closed the doors. Peace-loving people started running hither and thither. The peace of the community was distrubed. Reports of the said incidents were lodged by Rajjan Lal and Sub- Inspector Jatindra Kumar Rastogi, on which cases were registered. It was further stated that the petitioner went underground and till 10-5-1987 he kept inciting the Muslims which caused an apprehension that in future as well he will indulge himself in the activities which will disturb public peace. The petitioner surrendered in Court on 11-5-1987. As already observed, the detention order was passed against the petitioner on 19-5-1987. The said detention order, along with grounds of detention, passed by the District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar was served on the petitioner in jail on the same day, i. e. on 19-5-1987. The petitioner submitted his representation on 1-6-1987 and the same was rejected by the State Government on 6-6-1987. The grounds of detention, along with the representation of the petitioner, were placed before the Advisory Board, which considered the same in its meeting on 2-7-1987. The Advisory Board found sufficient cause for the detention of the petitioner. The State Government, by its order dated 13-7-1987 confirmed the detention order. The detention order has been challenged on various grounds. Firstly, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to us the report lodged by Sub Inspector Jatindra Kumar Rastogi at Police Station Colonelganj on 4-5-1987 at 11.45 p. m. on the basis of which crime case no. 89 of 1987 under sections 147, 149, 435, 436, 336, 427, 323 and 505 IPC was registered, and urged that in the said report the petitioner was not implicated and that he was also not mentioned among those persons, who were arrested at the spot. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in the said report it was not stated that the petitioner was amongst those persons who bad set the aforesaid taxi on fire. It may be observed that according to the said report when the aforesaid Sub- Inspector Jatindra Kumar Rastogi was on his duty he got information that rioting between the Hindus and Muslims was going on in Mohalla Ludhaura near the shop of the petitioner. Thereupon he reached there and found that rioting was taking place. He further stated in his report that the aforesaid taxi had also been set on fire. It is true that in his report Sub-Inspector Jatindra Kumar Rastogi did not name the petitioner for setting the aforesaid taxi on fire. In fact, in the said report of the Sub-Inspector Jatindra Kumar Rastogi the names of those Muslims who set the aforesaid taxi on fire were not mentioned. With respect to the same Sri Anurag Goel, the then District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar, who had passed the detention order against the petitioner, in his counter affidavit, has stated that he had perused the general diary and both the reports, i. e. the first information report lodged by Sub-Inspector Jatindra Kumar Rastogi and the report made by Rajjan Lal and that whereas the report of the Sub-Inspector Jatindra Kumar Rastogi was only general that some of the miscreants had set fire to the taxi the report of Rajjan Lal, who was in his house near which the taxi belonging to his brother-in-law, namely, Munna Lal, was parked was specific that the petitioner had set the aforesaid taxi to fire after sprinkling kerosene on the same. The District Magistrate has also stated that from the said report of Sri Rajjan Lal it was apparent that the police had arrived at the spot after the taxi had started burning and that therefore the police personnels were not able to see the actual miscreants setting the taxi to fire. In our view, if on the basis of the report of Sri Rajjan Lal etc. the District Magistrate was satisfied that it was the petitioner who had incited the communal feelings among the Muslims and had also set the aforesaid taxi on fire, it cannot be said that there was no material before the District Magistrate for passing the impugned order of detention against the petitioner.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Vijai Narain Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1984 SC 1334 and has urged that our Constitution did not give a carta blanche to any organ of the State to be the sole arbiter in the matter of the preventive detention and that the preventive detention was not beyond judicial scrutiny. THEre could be no dispute with regard to the said principle. It is well established that adequacy or sufficiency of materials is not a good ground of challenge. With regard to the same the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijai Narain Singh (supra) has observed that adequacy or sufficiency is not a ground of challenge. In Fazal Ghoshi v. State of U. P., AIR 1987 SC 1887 as well it was observed that in a matter of preventive detention the satisfaction of the District Magistrate was subjective in nature and that sufficiency of material could not be looked into by the Court. In our opinion, when there was existence of material against the petitioner that he had incited the communal feelings amongst the Muslims which resulted in rioting and also when he along with other Muslims at that time had set fire to a taxi belonging to a Hindu, this Court cannot put itself in the place of the District Magistrate and judge as to whether the said material was or was not sufficient to pass the detention order. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further urged before us that there was no previous criminal history of the petitioner and that, therefore, it was not proper for the District Magistrate to pass the aforesaid detention order against the petitioner. In our opinion, the said argument is misconceived because irrespective of the past history of a person if it is found that his present action conduct was so grave that it was likely to disturb the public order then in order to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order he could be detained.;