Case: Chaju Ram Vs. State Of Jammu &amp; Kashmir

1. The petitioner Chaju Ram was detained under the orders of the District Magistrate, Jammu passed under Section 3 (2) read with Section 5 of the Jammu and Kashmir Preventive Detention Act, 1964 on March 30, 1969. The order was served on him the same day and on the original order, we find an endorsement by the Station House Officer to the effect that in compliance with the District Magistrates order, he arrested Chaju at 6-30 p. m. and that the contents of the order were explained to him in Urdu by reading over the same to him in token of which his thumb impression was obtained on the face of the order. Beneath this endorsement, there is a thumb impression although it is not stated there whose thumb impression it is. In any event, this was in compliance with the direction given in the order itself that notice of the order should be given to Sh. Chaju by reading over the same toAs required by Section 8 of the Act, grounds of the order of detention had to be disclosed to Chaju. It is claimed that this was done on April 6, 1969 and that order has been produced before us. The grounds stated asThat Shri Chaju s/o Gura in (sic) conspiracy with some other leaders of Democratic Conference incited landless people of RSpura Tehsil to forcibly occupy the land comprised in Nandpur Mechanised Farm, with the full knowledge that such action on their part was likely to lead to disturbances in a sensitive border area .2. As a result of his activities some area of the Nandpur Farm was occupied by landless people between 18th March, 1968 to 25th February, 1969 who also constructed Jhugies on it. Chaju told them to persist in their illegal activities and urged them to resist violently any attempt to evict them. He told them the State Government would agree to allot this land to them only if a situation were created in which two or three persons were killed by Police firing.3. Squatters were evicted on 26th March, 1968 some of whom offered resistance. Even after this, Chaju continued his campaign of asking people to forcibly occupy vacant Government land on a massive scale with the avowed objective of repeating a "Naxalbari" in ourshall come to these grounds later. Chaju did not make a representation against his detention and on August 29, 1969, the Advisory Board held that the District Magistrate was fully justified and that there was sufficient cause for his detention.3. Chaju made a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution for his release by a writ of Habeas Corpus in this Court. Rule nisi on this petition was issued on December 2, 1969. The petition was made from jail and contained not much material except to say that he had been illegally detained for one year and was languishing in jail. In reply to the rule nisi, an affidavit was filed by the Additional Secretary to the Government of Jammu and Kashmir Home Department. However, Chaju withdrew that petition with permission to file another petition and he has filed a second petition on January 20, 1970 In this petition he has stated in pares 3, 4 and 6 that he was given some papers five days after Baisakhi (which fell on April 13, 1969) and being an illiterate person, he could not read the contents of the papers given. He also alleged that he was not explained the grounds of his detention and therefore he was deprived of his right of making a representation under the statute.. He also alleged that the grounds on which his detention had been ordered were vague and were not sufficient for him to make a representation if he cared.4. At the hearing we confined the case only to these two points, namely, whether Chaju was served the grounds of detention on April 6, 1969 as claimed in the reply affidavit and whether the contents of the grounds were explained to him in a language understood by him, and secondly whether the grounds were sufficiently precise and detailed for Chaju to make a proper representation as he was entitled to do under the Preventive Detention Act.

Reasoning: In our judgment, we cannot accept these documents at their face value. To begin with, the three endorsements on the copy, that is to say, (a) that the document was read over to him in Urdu, (b) the thumb impression and (c) the note that it is the thumb impression of Chaju, are in two different inks if not three. This raised a suspicion, that these might have been written later around the thumb impression taken from Chaju as was done when the order of detention was served on him. It may be recalled that at that time also there was an endorsement in English that it had been read over to him, but nothing had been written around the thumb impression of Chaju whether in Urdu or otherwise to show that the thumb impression was that of Chaju. We looked carefully at the affidavit filed in this Court which is a cyclostyled document. We find in para 6 a correction in a very significant place. This correction has been made by typing certain words in the place between two lines with an oblique showing that it is anare therefore compelled to hold in this case that the requirement of explaining the grounds to the detenu in his own language was not complied with.10. Even as to the grounds, we have something: to say. The grounds charge him with having conspired with some leaders of Democratic Conference and having incited landless people of RSpura Tehsil to forcibly occupy the land comprised in Nandpur Mechanised Farm and to have persuaded them to resist violently any attempt to evict them. No details of the leaders of the Conference or of the persons incited or the dates on which he conspired or incited the squatters or the time when such conference took place, are mentioned It would be impossible for anybody to make a representation against such grounds. These grounds, on the authorities of this Court, too numerous to be cited here must be held to be vague. Therefore on both the twin grounds, namely, that he was deprived of his right to make a representation and also because the grounds in themselves were very vague, we must hold that there was no compliance with the law as laid down in the Jammu and Kashmir Preventive Detention Act. The result, therefore, is that the detention must be declared to be unlawful and Chajn must be declared to be entitled to his liberty. He is ordered to be released. The detenu was questioned by us and he expressed a desire that he may not be released in Delhi, because he has no means of going back. He asked to be released in Jammu.