Saiyid Fazl Ali JUDGMENT
N. Chandrasekhara Aiyar, J.
1. The earlier of the two petitions has been filed by one Ujagar Singh, under article 32 of the Constitution of India, for a writ of habeas corpus and for an order of release from detention. The latter petition is a similar one by one Jagjit Singh. In both the partitions, the respondent is the State of Punjab. The orders of detention were made under the Preventive Detention Act IV of 1950. The petitions are not connected with each other, except that they raise the same grounds.
2. In Petition No. 149 of 1950, Ujagar Singh was originally arrested and detained under the East Punjab Public Safety Act on 29th September, 1948. He was released on 28th March, 1949, but on the same date, there was an internment order against him. On 29th September, 1949, he was re-arrested. On 2nd March, 1950, an order of detention under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, was served on him, and on 3rd April, 1950, he was served with the grounds of the detention dated 11th March, 1950. Both in September, 1949, and in March, 1950, the ground alleged was "You tried to create public disorder amongst tenants in Una Tehsil by circulating and distributing objectionable literature issued by underground communists." Additional grounds were furnished in July 1950.
3. In petition No. 167 of 1950, Jagjit Singh was arrested on 24th July, 1948, under the provision of the Punjab Safety Act, 1947. After the East Punjab Safety Act, 1949, came into force, a fresh detention order dated 14th May, 1949, was served on him and he continued to be kept in jail. Grounds of detention were given to him. on 7th September, 1949. A fresh order of detention under the Preventive Detention Act (IV of 1950) dated 2nd March, 1950, was served on 7th March 1950. Grounds of detention dated 11th March, 1950, were served on him on 3rd April, 1950. Both in September 1949 and April, 1950, the same ground was given, i.e.. "In pursuance of the policy of the Communist Party. You were engaged in preparing the masses for violent revolutionary campaign and attended secret party meeting to give effect to this programme." Additional or supplementary grounds were served on 5th August, 1950.
4. Several contentions were advanced on behalf of the petitioners challenging the legality of their detention and urging that as the detention was unlawful and the petitioners' fundamental right of personal liberty had been infringed, they should be set at liberty. The points taken on their behalf can be briefly summarised as follows. As the ground of detention now mentioned was the same as the ground specified in 1948 or 1949, i.e. months earlier under the Provincial Acts, the order of detention was made mechanically and was really mala fide in the sense that there is nothing to show that were was any fresh satisfaction on the part of the detaining authority that detention was necessary in the interest of public order. Secondly, the grounds were not given "as soon as may be", which is required under section 7 of the Act; and as an unusually long period of time elapsed between the order of detention and the giving of the grounds, the detention must be held to be unlawful after the lapse of a reasonable time. Thirdly, t........