Case: Karam Chand Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir

The petitioner, Karam Chand son of Khushi Ram in these proceedings for a writ in the nature of habeas corpus complains that he was arrested on February 9, 1968 without any warrant and has since then been kept in illegal custody. The grounds of detention have also not been communicated to him.2. According to the return, Shri. Bharat Bhushan, I.A.S., Divisional Commissioner, Jammu, had on February 16, 1968, made the following order under Section 3 (2), read with Section 5 of Jammu and Kashmir Preventive Detention Act 13 of 1964 for the petitioners detention :"ORDER NO. : 3/C/1968datedI, Bharat Bhushan, I.A.S., Divisional Commissioner, Jammu, am satisfied that with a view to preventing Shri Karam Chand s/o. Khushi Ram, r/o. Chand Gran, p/s. Kathua from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State, it is necessary so to do : Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 (2) read with Section 5 of the Jammu and Kashmir Preventive Detention Act, 1964 I, Bharat Bhushan, I.A.S. Divisional Commissioner, Jammu hereby direct that the said Karam Chand be detained in the 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 General Order, 1968.Sd. Bharat Bhushan, I.A.S.Divisional Commissioner, Jammu."On the same day the said officer made another order under Section 8, read with Sectionof the aforesaid Act directing that the detenu be informed that it is against the public interest to disclose to him the grounds on which his detention order was made. This order is in the following terms :"ORDER NO.eas Shri. Karam Chand s/o. Shri. Khushi Ram, r/o. Chan Gran p/s. Kathua has been detained in pursuance of order No. 3/C of 1968, datedmade by me under Section 3 (2) read with Section 5 of the Jammu and Kashmir Preventive Detention Act, 1964, with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State; andWhereas I consider it against the public interest to disclose the grounds of detention to the said Karam Chand.Now, therefore, in pursuance of Section 8, read with Sectionof the said Act I hereby direct that the said Karam Chand be informed that it is against the public interest to disclose to him the grounds on which his detention order was made.Sd. Bharat Bhushan, I.A.S.Divisional Commissioner, Jammu."The contents of both the orders were duly communicated to the petitioner. According to the Divisional Commissioner the papers were thereafter placed before the Chief Minister in charge of the Home Department and the Government duly confirmed the detention order on March 6, 1968. That order reads as under :"GOVERNMENT ORDER NO. I.S.D.327 of 1968DateGovernment having considered the order of detention made by the Divisional Commissioner vide No. 3/C/1968 datedin respect of Shri Karam Chand s/o. Khushi Ram r/o. Chand Gran p/s. Kathua along with his report and the grounds on which the order has been made and other particulars having bearing on the matters, hereby approve the said detention order.By order of the Government of Jammu and Kashmir.Sd. Secretary to GovernmentHome Department."

Court's reasoning:
3. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner thatof the grounds of his detention to the petitioner is violative of Article 22 (5) of the Constitution with the result that his detention must be struck down as illegal.This submission is misconceived. Article 35 (c) of the Constitution is a complete answer to thispetitioners detention, as is obvious from the order was directed with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State.5. In Karam Chand v. State of Jammu and Kashmir (W.P. No. 157 of 1969) decided on September 3, 1969 it was conceded by the counsel for the detenu that it was competent for the Divisional Commissioner not to furnish the grounds of detention to the detenue. It appears to us that it was the present petitioner who had applied to this Court earlier also and from the records of that case we have verified that the parentage of the petitioner in that case as also the order of detention and the other relevant orders are identical with those in the present case. We are, however, not basing our decision on the ground of rejection of an earlier habeas corpus petition by the present petitioner because in the return, for reason best known to the respondent, this point was not raised.