(1.) This petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India raises the question of validity of the detention of the petitioner under S. 3 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 (Act No. 31of 1946) Hereinafter called the Act).
(2.) The petitioner is a Pakistani national who entered India without any travel documents. On May 8, 1964, he was arrested in New Delhi by the Customs Authorities under S. 135 of the Indian Customs Act, 1962. On May 9, 1964, he was ordered to be enlarged on bail. On May 18, 1965, he was ordered to be released. When he was about to be released from jail, a detention order was served on him by the Central Government under S. 3 (2) (g) of the Act. It was said that he had to be detained as police investigation was in progress in respect of a case of conspiracy to smuggle gold of which he was a member. On May, 29, 1965, he was convicted by the Magistrate, First Class, Delhi of an offence under the Customs Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 9 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000. The appeal filed by him to the Sessions Judge against that order was dismissed. The petitioner underwent imprisonment and also paid the fine. Before his term of imprisonment expired the petitioner filed a writ of habeas corpus in the Circuit Bench of the Punjab High Court at Delhi challenging his detention. That petition was dismissed by Khanna J., on merits. Before the learned Judge the constitutional validity of S. 3 (2)(g) of the Act was not canvassed. The learned Judge held that the section authorised the Government to make the said order of detention on its subjective satisfaction and that the Court could not question its validity in the absence of any mala fides. He negatived the contention raised before him that an order under that sub-section could not be made for the purpose of completing an investigation in a conspiracy as no such limitation was found therein. In short, he dismissed the petition on merits.
(3.) The present petition was filed in this Court under Art. 32 of the Constitution on May 12, 1966 for issue of a writ of habeas corpus against the respondents directing them to set him at liberty on the ground that the provisions of the Act were invalid.