MOHAMMAD YOUSUF RATHER Vs. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition of Mohammad Yousuf Rather under Article 32 of the Constitution challenges his detention under S. 8 (a) (i) of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The order of detention has been made by the District Magistrate of Anantnag on April 12, 1979, and it is not in controversy that it has really been made under sub-sec. (2) of S. 8 of the Act on the basis of the satisfaction provided for in sub-clause (1) of clause (a) of sub-sec. (1) of that section. While the petitioner has stated that he did not receive the order of detention, and only the grounds of detention were communicated to him, his learned counsel Mr. Ramamurthi has not raised any controversy on that account. He has in fact given up several other points on which the writ petition has been filed, and has contented himself by putting his arguments in two ways. Firstly, he has argued that some of the grounds are so vague that the petitioner has not found it possible to exercise his fundamental right of making a representation under Art. 22 (5) of the Constitution. Secondly, he has argued that some of the grounds are irrelevant for the purpose of making of an order under S. 8 of the Act. We shall therefore confine ourselves to a consideration of these two points of controversy.

(2.) The grounds of detention have admittedly been sent to the petitioner by way of an annexure to the District Magistrate's order No. 49-54/ST dated April 12, 1979. It has been stated therein that the detention has been ordered on "the grounds specified in the Annexure .......... which also contains facts relevant thereto," and the petitioner has been informed that he may make a representation to the Government against the order of detention if he so desires. We shall refer to the annexure in a while, but it may be stated here that the counsel for the respondents has not found it possible to contend that no part thereof is vague. He has however tried to argue that the annexure contains a preamble as well as the grounds of detention, and that the vagueness of the preamble could not possibly justify the argument that the grounds of detention are also vague. Learned counsel has tried to support his argument by reference to the decision of this Court in Naresh Chandra Ganguli v. State of West Bengal (1960) 1 SCR 411. The annexure reads as follows:-

(3.) 'Preamble' has been defined in the Oxford English Dictionary to mean " a preliminary statement, in speech or writing; an introductory paragraph, section, or clause; a preface, prologue, introduction." It has further been defined there as "an introductory paragraph or part in a statute deed, or other document, setting forth the grounds and intention of it." The preamble thus betokens that which follows. The respondents' learned counsel has not however found it possible to point out where the preamble could be said to begin, or to finish, and which of the paragraphs could be said to constitute the grounds of detention as such.