Criminal Appeal No 59 of 1959
Appeal from the judgment and order dated the January 8 1959 of the Calcutta High Court in Criminal Misc
Case No 126 of 1958
AND PETITION No 51 OF 1959
Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights
Veda Vyasa section K Kapur and Ganpat Rai for the appellant and petitioner
B Sen and P K Bose for the respondents
May 20
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SINHA J
This appeal on a certificate of fitness granted by the Calcutta High Court is directed against the order of that Court dated January 8 1959 in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No 126 of 1958 refusing to issue a writ in the nature of habeas corpus in respect of one Ram Prasad Das who will hereinafter be referred to as the petitioner 
This Court by an order 413 dated April 20 1959 directed that the application of the petitioner under article 32 of the Constitution for a similar writ in respect of the same person be posted for hearing immediately after the aforesaid criminal appeal and that it shall not be necessary that the petitioner be produced before this Court at the time of the hearing of the writ petition
Hence both the matters relating as they do to the same subject matter have been heard together and will be disposed of by this judgment
It appears that Naresh Chandra Ganguli an advocate practising in the Calcutta High Court made an application under sections 491 and 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure as a friend on behalf on the petitioner in detention in the Dum Dum Central Jail in 24 Parganas under the orders of the Government of West Bengal
The application was made to the Calcutta High Court on the following allegations The peti tioner is the Secretary of the West Bengal Committee of the Bharatiya Jana Sangha one of the four big political parties as recognized by the Election Commission of India
On or about October 7 1958 towards evening when the petitioner was coming out of the Basanta Cabin a tea stall at the crossing of the College Street and Surya Sen Street after having addressed a meeting at the College Square he was stopped on the street by the police and was taken to the office of the Special Branch Police on Lord Sinha Road
From there he was sent to the Dum Dum Central Jail where he was served with an order
being Order No 83 dated October 7 1958 purporting to have been made by the Commissioner of Police Calcutta under the provisions of the Preventive Detention Act No IV of 1950 hereinafter referred to as the Act 
The order is in these terms  ORDER Dated 7 10 58
No 83
Whereas I am satisfied with respect to the person known as Sri Ram Prasad  as son of late Bepin Behari Das of Village P S P Dist
and of 6 Murlidhar Sen Lane Calcutta that with a view to preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial 414 to the maintenance of Public Order it is necessary so to do
Now therefore in exercise of the Powers conferred by Section 32 of the IV of 1950 1 made this order directing that the said Sri Ram Prasad Das be detained
Given under my hand and seal of office
Sd Illegible Commissioner of Police Calcutta
 On or about October 8 1958 the petitioner was served in the Dum Dum Central Jail with a further order being Order No 85 dated October 8 1958 which is as follows  Government of West Bengal
Office of the Commissioner of Police Calcutta
Dated 8 10 58
No 85
Grounds for detention under clause ii of clause a of Sub section 1 of Section 3 of the Act IV of 1950
To Sri Rain Prasad Das SO Bepin Behari Das of 6 Muralidhar Sen Lane Calcutta
You are being detained in pursuance of a detention order made in exercise of power conferred by Section 32 c of the PD Act 1950 Act IV of 1950 on the ground that you are acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order as evidenced by the particulars given below 1That on 13 9 58 you attended a meeting of Eastern Indian Refugee Council held at the Refugee office at  6 Murlidhar Sen Lane and vilified Prime Minister of India for his allegedly turning a deaf ear to the untold miseries of the refugees and while referring to the recent agreement between the Prime Ministers of India and Pakistan you vented feelings of violence against the Prime Minister of India by emphasising that in order to save the refugees and the territories of the Indian Union Sri Nehru should be murdered if necessary and so the need of another Nathuram Godse was felt now
415 2
That in course of discussion with members of your party on 17 9 58 at 6 Murlidhar Sen Lane you stated that the Indian Prime Minister had made a Present of certain Indian enclaves to Pakistan in pursuance of the policy of appeasement which has been initiated by the Late Mahatma Gandhi and called upon the members to build uP strong movement against the implementation of Nehru Noon Pact
You also tried to
rouse passions by alleging that the Indian Prime Minister had no sympathy for West Bengal
That on 26 9 58 you attended another meeting of the South Durtolla Branch of the Jana Sangha at Jatin Mitter Park where you denounced the aforesaid agreement between the two Prime Ministers and stressed the need of forming a militia with the youths of the country for the safety of the people living in border areas and urged all to enrol themselves for the said purpose
That you intend to proceed to Delhi on 9 10 58 and that you are likely to instigate plans which may adversely affect the personal security of the Prime Minister of India
Your action above is bound to result in the maintenance of public order being prejudicially affected
You are hereby informed that you may make a representation to the State Government against the detention order and that such representation should be addressed to the Assistant Secy
Home Special Department Government of West Bengal and forwarded through the Supt
of the Jail in which you are detained as early as possible
You are also informed that us 10 of the PD Act 1950 IV of 1950 the Advisory Board shall if you desire to be heard hear you in person and that if you desire to be so heard by the Advisory Board you should intimate such desire in your representation to the State Government
Sd Illegible Commissioner of Police Calcutta 416 On or about October 11 1958 the petitioner was served with another order which is in these terms  Government of West Bengal
Home Department Special Section
Order Calcutta 11 10 58
No 1882 H section In exercise of the power conferred by Section 32 of the Preventive Detention Act 1950 IV of 1950 the Governor is pleased to approve order No 83 dated the 7 10 58 made under Section 32 of the said Act by the Commissioner of Police Calcutta directing that Sri Ram Prasad Das son of Late Bepin Behari Das of 6 Murlidhar Sen Lane Calcutta be detained
By order of the Governor
Sd Illegible Dy
Secty
to the Govt
of West Bengal
 The petitioner made a representation in writing against the order of detention aforesaid denying and refuting the grounds of his detention set out above
He particularly denied the allegation contained in ground No 1 aforesaid as totally false and stated that there was no meeting as alleged on September 13 1958 and that he had not made any speech attributed to him in the said ground
He also denied that he had advocated in any meeting for the formation of a militia as alleged
But he claimed that he had a right to express his views about the policy of the Government or the Prime Minister relating to Pakistan and or about Nehru Noon Pact or similar other Agreements
He denied that he indulged in any violent speeches or that he tried to rouse passions
His further contention was that the ground No 4 was extremely vague in the absence of any particulars about how where and when and in what manner he was likely to instigate any plan which was to adversely affect the personal security of the Prime Minister of India and the nature or particulars of any such contemplated plan
In his application to the High Court the petitioner also submitted that the grounds supplied to him had 417 no rational connection with the objects mentioned in section 3 of the Act and that therefore he was deprived of his right to make an effective representation
He also alleged that he was a member of a political party opposed to the party in power and held definitely pronounced views about the failure of the Government to tackle the problem of refugees as also about the relationship between the Government and the State of Pakistan
He also claimed to be a leader of the refugees and as such had been relentlessly criticising the policies of the present Government
He further asserted that the order of detention passed against him was a clear case of political victimisation
He alleged further that the order of detention on the face of it was malafide and was a clear infringement of his fundamental right to freedom of speech and association guaranteed by the Constitution
On November 28 1958 the petitioner was brought to the Writers  Buildings in Calcutta and placed before the Advisory Board as constituted under the Act
The petitioner was heard in person by the Advisory Board on that date and on the next day that is November 29 1958 after the hearing by the Advisory Board another order being order No 1967 H section dated November 29 1958 made by the Governor of West Bengal was issued confirming the aforesaid order of detention No 83 dated October 7 1958 set out above and continuing the petitioner s detention till the expiration of 12 months from the date of detention
On those allegations the petitioner submitted to the High Court that the orders aforesaid relating to his detention in the Dum Dum Central Jail were  illegal invalid ultra vires void and inoperative An affidavit in opposition on behalf of the State of West Bengal and other opposite parties was sworn to by the Commissioner of Police Calcutta opposite party No 3 in the case In the aforesaid affidavit the deponent averrred that he was satisfied on the records and materials placed before him that the petitioner was a person likely to act in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and that with a view to preventing him from doing so it 418 was necessary to make the order of detention on the grounds mentioned in the Order No 85 dated October 8 1958 set out above
He also averred that the orders of detention aforesaid together with the grounds and all other relevant particulars were reported by him to the Government of West Bengal which after duly considering the same duly approved of the orders of detention
It was also stated in the affidavit that the petitioner personally appeared before the Advisory Board on November 28 1958 and the Advisory Board upon a consideration of the records and materials placed before it and the representation made by the petitioner and after hearing the petitioner in person reported to the Government  of West Bengal that in the opinion of the Advisory Board there was sufficient cause for the detention of the petitioner
The Commissioner of Police further stated in the affidavit that he had duly passed and signed the orders of detention after considering the records and materials in respect of the petitioner in exercise of the powers conferred under the Act bona fide and without any malice whatsoever on being satisfied about the necessity of the said orders of detention
He also stated that he denied all statements of facts to the contrary contained in the affidavit in support of the petition and he undertook to produce the original records in the Court at the hearing
Allegations of victimisation on political grounds and that the order of detention was mala fide and in infringement of the fundamental rights of the petitioner were specifically denied
The matter was heard by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court Guha Roy and H K Sen JJ which by its order dated January 8 1958 discharged the Rule
In the course of its judgment the High Court made the following observations On a reading of the order however it is quite clear to us that paragraphs 1 2 3 and 4 do not state the grounds of the order
There is only one ground of the order and that is that the petitioner was acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and the remaining paragraphs of the order make it quite clear that what are stated 419 in paragraphs 1 2 3 and 4 constitute different pieces of evidence by which the authority making the order came to the conclusion that the petitioner was acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and therefore should be detained under the Act
 Hence the High Court on a construction of section 3 of the Act came to the conclusion that the grounds of detention in respect of the petitioner were not vague and that the statement in para
4 of the detention order No 85 dated October 8 1958 quoted above was not a ground but only a piece of evidence out of several such pieces of evidence on which the ground of detention was based
It was further pointed out that para
4 aforesaid was not by itself a ground of the order but merely an inference of fact which had some bearing on the ground of the order
The High Court also pointed out that there was no ambiguity in the recitals including these in para
4 aforesaid
In that view of the matter the order of detention of the petitioner was upheld and the Court further held that the question whether the whole  order was bad on the ground that one of the grounds was too vague did not arise in the case
The petitioner moved the Calcutta High Court for a certificate that the case was a fit one for appeal to this Court
The Chief Justice of the High Court delivering the order of the Division Bench of that Court granting the necessary certificate observed that the view of the High Court that para
4 aforesaid was not a ground of detention but only one of the items of evidence in support of the ground raised a serious question to be determined by this Court particularly because a view contrary to the one taken by the High Court in the instant case appeared to have been taken by this Court and by the Calcutta High Court itself in a number of decisions
That is how this appeal has come to this Court
Besides preferring the aforesaid appeal the petitioner moved this Court under article 32 of the Constitution praying for a writ in the nature of habeas corpus and a Constitution Bench by its order dated April 20 1959 directed that this appeal be posted for 420 hearing by a Constitution Bench on May 11 1959 on a cyclostyled paper book and that the filing of the petition of appeal and the statements of cases be dispensed with
The Court further ordered that the application under article 32 of the Constitution be posted for hearing immediately after the criminal appeal
That is how both the matters have been placed one after the other for hearing before us
The order under appeal takes the view that the various grounds of detention are stated in section 3 1a i ii iii and b of the Act and that there can be no grounds apart from those
The High Court then on a reading of the Order No 85 set out above has held that paragraphs 1 2 3 and 4 are not the grounds of detention as contemplated by section 3 of the Act but that they only constitute different pieces of evidence by which the authority making the order came to the conclusion that the petitioner was acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order which was the only ground on which the order of detention in question was founded
The High Court was right in its literal construction of the order impugned in this case which proceeds to recite the four numbered paragraphs preceded by the introductory clause  as evidenced by the particulars given below
 But the case of The State of Bombay vs Atma Ram Sridhar Vaidya 1 has laid it down that cl 5 of article 22 of the Constitution confers two distinct though interrelated rights on the petitioner namely 1 the right to be informed of the grounds on which the order of detention has been made and 2 the right to be enabled at the earliest opportunity to make a representation against the order
This Court further pointed out in that case that the grounds which have a rational connection with the objects mentioned in section 3 have to be supplied
As soon as that is done the first condition of a valid detention is complied with
The second condition of such a detention is fulfilled only after the detenu has been supplied with such information as will enable him to make a representation
If the information supplied in order to enable a detenu 1  421 to make a representation does not contain sufficient particulars the detenu is entitled to ask for further particulars which will enable him to make a representation
Therefore if there is an infringement of either of the two rights and any one of the two conditions precedent to a valid detention as aforesaid has not been fulfilled the detenu has a right to approach this Court for a writ in the nature of habeas corpus
In other words the grounds for making an order of detention which have to be communicated to the detenu as soon as practicable are conclusions of facts and are not a complete recital of all the relevant facts
Therefore the grounds that is to say those conclusions of facts must be in existence when the order of detention is made and those conclusions of facts have to be communicated to the detenu as soon as may be
This Court and naturally the High Courts have treated the recitals in the orders of detention with particular reference to the several clauses and sub clauses of section 3 1 a and b of the Act as stating the object to be achieved in making the order of detention
The order of detention may also contain recitals of facts upon which it is based
If the order of detention also contains the recitals of facts upon which it is founded no further question arises but if it does not contain the recitals of facts which form the basis of the conclusions of fact justifying the order of detention then as soon as may be now under section 7 within a maximum period of five days from the date of detention the person detained has to be informed of those facts which are the basic facts or the reasons on which the order of detention has been made
Section 3 of the Act requires the authority making an order of detention to state the fact of its satisfaction that it is necessary to make the order of detention of a particular person with a view to preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to one or more of the objects contained in clauses and sub clauses of section 3 1 a and b of the Act
Section 7 requires that the person detained should be communicated the grounds on which the order of detention has been made so a  to afford him the earliest opportunity to make a 422 representation against the order to the appropriate Government
The statement of facts contemplated by section 7 would thus constitute the grounds and not the matters contained in one or more of the clauses and sub clauses under section 3 1 a and b of the Act
Section 3 also requires that when an order of detention has been made the State Government concerned has to be apprised of the order of detention as also of the grounds on which the order of detention has been made together with such other particulars as have a bearing on the order and the grounds
And finally after the order has been approved by the State Government that Government in its turn has to report to the Central Government the fact of the detention together with the grounds on which the order of detention had been made and such other particulars as in the opinion of the State Government have a bearing on the necessity for the order
Thus on a consideration of the provisions of sections 3 and 7 of the Act it may be observed that the detenu has to be served with a copy of the order passed by the authority contemplated by sub section
2 of section 3 containing firstly recitals in terms of one or more of the subclauses of cl
a and b of section 31 which we may call the Preamble  and secondly the grounds contemplated by section 7 namely the conclusions of fact which have led to the passing of the order of detention informing the detenu as to why he was being detained
lf the grounds do not contain all the particulars necessary for enabling the detenu to make his representation against the order of his detention he may ask for further particulars of the facts and the authority which passed the order of detention is expected to furnish all that information subject of course to the provisions of sub section
2 of section 7  that is to say the person detained shall not be entitled to the disclosure of such facts as the authority making the order considers against public interest to disclose
Thus the order of detention to be served upon the person detained would usually consist of the first two parts namely the preamble and the grounds but it may also consist of the third part namely the 423 particulars if and when they are required or found to be necessary
But it has to be noted that the particular referred to in sub sections
3 and 4 of section 3 would not be identical with the particulars which we have called the third part of the order
The State Government as also the Central Government would naturally be placed in possession of all the relevant facts and particulars on which the order of detention has been passed
But those particulars may contain such details of facts as may not be communicated in public interest to the person detained
From what has been said above it is clear that the High Court was in error in so far as it treated what we have called the preamble  as the grounds of detention contemplated by section 7 of the Act
But this error as will presently appear has not affected the legality propriety or correctness of the order passed by the High Court in the habeas corpus proceedings before it
The High Court as already indicated after making those observations which we have held to be erroneous proceeded further to say that there was no ambiguity in the recitals of facts as the High Court characterised them and which we have called the grounds
The contention raised before the High Court has been repeated before us that the grounds contained in para
4 are vague and indefinite not enabling the person detained to make his representation
It will appear from the paragraph aforesaid that the petitioner intended to proceed to Delhi on October 91958 with a view to instigating plans against the personal security of the Prime Minister
It is clear that the place date and purpose of the planned nefarious activity have all been stated as clearly as could be expected
But it was argued that it was also necessary to state the details of the plan to be hatched in Delhi
There are several answers to this contention
Paragraph 4 has reference to something which was apprehended but lay in the womb of the future
From the nature of the fact that it was not an event which had already happened but what was apprehended to be in the contemplation of the detenu and his associates if any no further details of the plan could possibly be 424 disclosed
As was observed in the decision of this Court in The State of Bombay vs Atma Ram Sridhar Vaidya 1 at pp
184 and 185 vagueness is a relative term
Its meaning must vary with the facts and circumstances of each case
What may be said to be vague in one case may not be so in another and it could not be asserted as a general rule that a ground is necessarily vague if the only answer of the detained person can be to deny it
If the statement of facts is capable of being clearly understood and is sufficiently definite to enable the detained person to make his representation it cannot be said that it is vague
Further it cannot be denied that particulars of what has taken place can be more definitely stated than those of events which are yet in the offing
In the very nature of things the main object of the Act is to prevent persons from doing something which comes within the purview of any one of the sub clauses of cl
a of section 31 of the Act
It was next contended that some of the grounds at least are irrelevant
This was not said of the first paragraph of the grounds set out above
It was said of paragraphs 2 3 and 4 that they are irrelevant to the main object of the order of detention namely the maintenance of public order
In our opinion there is no substance in this contention either
All the statements in the four paragraphs of the grounds which have to be read together as being parts of a connected whole calling upon persons to  build up strong movement against the implementation of Nehru Noon Pact and to rouse passions by alleging that the Indian Prime Minister had no sympathy for West Bengal cannot be said to be wholly unconnected with the maintenance of public order
Similarly denouncing the agreement between the two Prime Ministers and stressing the need of forming a militia with the youths of the country cannot be said to have no repercussions on the maintenance of public order
And lastly any instigation against the personal safety of the Prime Minister of India cannot but have a deleterious effect on the maintenance of public order 1  425 It was sought to be argued that any weak link in the chain of facts and circumstances said to have been the basis of the order of detention would affect the legality of the whole order
This argument postulates that there are many grounds which are either vague or irrelevant
In this connection particular reliance was placed on the observations of this Court in Dwarka Dass Bhatia vs The State of Jammu and Kashmir 1 to the effect that if some of the reasons on which the order of detention had been based are found to be non existent or irrelevant the Court ought to quash the order because it is not in a position to know which of the reasons or the grounds had operated on the mind of the authorities concerned when they decided the pass the impugned order
As already pointed out no such situation arises in this case because in our opinion none of the grounds is either vague or irrelevant
It may also be pointed out that the ground of irrelevance wag not urged before the High Court but even so we allowed the petitioner s counsel to urge that ground before us and having heard him on that aspect of the matter we have no doubt that there is no justification for the contention that any of the matters taken into consideration by the authorities concerned in the matter of the detention of the petitioner was irrelevant
For the reasons given above it must be held that there is no merit in this appeal or in the application under article 32 of the Constitution
They are accordingly dismissed
Appeal and application dismissed


Summary:
An industrial dispute between the hotel and its workmen was referred to an Industrial Tribunal
The attack of the hotel was on the form of the order of reference the main contention being that the reference was incompetent on the grounds that the Union could not be made a party to the reference under the Industrial Disputes Act and that the reference was vague as it did not indicate how many of the workers of different categories working in the hotel were involved in the dispute
Held that the order of reference was perfectly competent when the parties to it and the nature of the dispute were clearly specified
The reference which was otherwise valid does not become incompetent simply because it was mentioned therein that the workmen will be represented by such and such Union in the dispute
The addition of the name of the Union was merely for the sake of convenience so that the Tribunal may know to whom it should give notice when proceeding to deal with the reference  that does not preclude the workmen from being represented by another Union or even being made parties individually
It is unnecessary for the purpose of section 10 of the Act where the dispute was of a general nature relating to the terms of employment or condition of labour of a body of workmen to mention the names of particular workmen who might have been responsible for the dispute
It was only where a dispute refers to the dismissal etc of particular workmen as represented by the Union that it would be desirable to mention the names of the workmen concerned
State of Madras vs C P Sarathy  referred to