PREM AVTAR BAKSHI Vs. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a writ of Habeas Corpus directed against an order of detention passed by the District Magistrate, Jammu dated 13-9-69, The petition arises in the following circumstances.

(2.) THE petitioner is a journalist by profession and is the editor of a fortnightly news magazine called the Kashmir Post. The petitioner was arrested and detained in the Special Jail on the morning of 14-9-69 under a detention order passed by the District Magistrate Jammu dated 13-9-69. The petitioner seeks to challenge this order before me mainly on two grounds. In the first place the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order not being in terms of Section 3 (2) of the Preventive Detention Act (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) was clearly invalid and therefore the detenu was entitled to be released. Secondly it was submitted that the grounds served on the petitioner are extremely vague and ambiguous and on this ground also the order of detention was bad. In order to appreciate the contentions of the petitioner it will be necessary to quote the detention order gassed by the District Magistrate which runs thus: Whereas I, Ashok Jaitly, District Magistrate, Jammu am satisfied that with a view to preventing Shri Prem Avtar Bakshi s/o Late Bakshi Hukum Chand r/o Moholla Pratap Garh Jammu P/s City Jammu, District Jammu from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of law and order, it is necessary so to do. Now therefore in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 (2) read with Section 5 of the J, and K Preventive Detention Act, 1964, I Ashok Jaitly District Magistrate, Jammu, hereby direct that the said Shri Prem Avtar Bakshi be detained in Central Jail, Jammu, subject to such conditions as to maintenance of discipline and punishment for breaches of discipline as have been specified in the Jammu and Kashmir Detenu's General Order of 1968. He be placed in Class (B ).

(3.) THE relevant portion of this order which impelled the District Magistrate to detain the petitioner is that according to him the petitioner was acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of law and order. Section 3 (2) of the Act under which the detention order purports to have been passed does not authorise the detaining authority to detain any person for maintenance of law and order at all, but the words used in Section 3 (1) (a) (i) of the Act are as follows: The Government may (a) if satisfied with respect to any person that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to (i) the security of the State or the maintenance of public order it is necessary so to do, make an order directing that such person be detained.