Summarize the following court judgment. n Nos. 1679	 1662 and 1681 of 1973. (Under Article 32 of the Constitution for issue of a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus.) R. K. Jain	 amicus curiae for the Petitioner. M. M. Kshatriya and G. section Chatterjee for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SARKARIA J. This judgment will dispose of all the three petitions above mentioned under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. It will be convenient to first take up Writ Petition No. 1679 of 1973. The petitioner Shaik Hanif	 aged 40 years	 was arrested on February 23	 1973 in pursuance of a detention order	 dated February 19	 1973	 passed by the District Magistrate	 West Dinajpur in West Bengal under sub section (1) read with sub section (2) of s.3 of the (for short	 'the Act '). On February 19	 1973	 the District Magistrate reported about his detention to the State Govern ment which approved it on March 1	 1973. The detenu made a representation which was rejected by the State Government on April 5	 1973 and forwarded to the Advisory Board for consideration. The Board reported to the State Government on April 24. 1973 that there was sufficient cause for the detention. Thereupon the Government confirmed the order of detention under s.12(1) of the Act and directed that the detention of the petitioner would continue "till the expiration of 12 months from the date of his detention or until the expiry of Defence of India Act of 1971 whichever is later. " The grounds of detention as conveyed to the detenu under P. 8(1)	 read as under : 260 "You are being detained in pursuance of a detention order on the ground that you have been acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community	 as evidenced by the particulars given below : On 3 7 72 at dead of night you along with your associates kept concealed 20 bundles	 of Telegraph copper wire weighing 2 qutls. 60 kgs. in your court yard under earth with a view to dispose of the same in opportune moment. The said Telegraph copper wire were recovered on 3 7 72 on the basis of the confession of your associates. The police seized those copper wire and arrested your associate but you evaded arrest. This activity of yours seriously affected one of the essential services to the community by disrupting Telegraph facilities to the public and thus you acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community. You are hereby informed that you may make a representation to the State Government against the detention order your case shall be placed before the Advisory Board within thirty days from the ' date of your detention under the order. You are also informed that under Section 11 (Act 26 of 1971) the Advisory Board	 shall if you desire to be heard	 hear you in person. Sd/ K. L. Gupta 19 2 73. District Magistrate	 West Dinajpur	 Balurghat". In answer to the Rule Nisi issued by this Court	 Shri Sukuniar Sen	 Deputy Secretary	 Home (Special) Department	 Government of West Bengal filed the counter affidavit	 explaining that the district Magistrate who passed the order of detention "is at present not available for affirming the affidavit as he has been transferred from the said District". In para 4 of the affidavit	 it is stated : "It appears from the records that after receiving reliable information relating to the illegal anti social and prejudicial activities of the above named detenu petitioner relating to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community	 the said District Magistrate of West Dinajpur passed order of detention against him under the provisions of the said Act." In para 7	 it is averred "I further state that it appears from the record that the petitioner is a veteran copper wire stealer. It was found on 3 7 72 that the petitioner and his associates kept concealed about 20 bundles of telegraph cable wire underground in the court yard of his house with a view to dispose the same at opportune moment. The said removal of copper wire from 261 the telegraph lines resulted in disruption of telegraph service and he was detained under the said Act". In paragraph 9 of the affidavit it is inter alia stated that the "statements made in paragraphs 3	 4	 5	 6 and 7 are based on information derived from the records kept in the office of the State Government in its Home Department (Special Section)	 which I verily believe to be true." Mr. R. K. Jain	 who assisted the Court as amicus curiae advanced these contentions in support of the petition : (1) After the issue of Rule Nisi by this Court	 it was incumbent upon the Respondent State to satisfy the Court about the legality of the detention by producing the affidavit of the District Magistrate who had. passed the detention order. The counter affidavit of the Deputy Secretary who did not personally deal with the case at any stage	 is no substitute for the affidavit of the District Magistrate on the basis of whose subjective	 satisfaction	 the detention has been effected. The omission to file the counter affidavit of the District Magistrate coupled with the other circumstances of the case	 shows that the detention order was passed in an utterly casual way	 without application of mind and it was therefore	 illegal; (2) From the counter affidavit of the Deputy Secretary	 it appears that there were "reliable information" and material (other than the solitary ground of detention communicated to the detenu) before the detaining authority on the basis of which it was satisfied that the petitioner was a "veteran copper wire stealer" and had been indulging in "illegal anti social activities prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community". Since the	 nondisclosure of that information or material lo the detenu is not sought to be justified under clause (6) of Article 22	 on the ground of its being facts which the detaining authority considers to be against the public interest to disclose	 it was incumbent upon the authority to communicate the detenu that information and material in full. Since this was not done	 the detenu was unable to make an :effective representation. The detention order was thus violative of the mandate of clause (5) of Article 22	 and liable to be struck down on that score; (3) The Act is violative of Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution because its : (a) Section 3 makes no provision for an objective determination of the truth of the allegations that form the basis of action under that section; (b) Section 8 does not provide for consideration of the representation of the detenu by an impartial body in accordance with the principles of natural justice; (c) Section It enables the Advisory Board to base its report on the material received by the Board from the Officer passing the order of detention without the said report being disclosed to the detenu and without affording him an opportunity to controvert the contents of the said report; 262 (d) Sections 11 and 12 empower the Advisory Board and the State Government	 as the. case may be	. to take	 into consideration materials and information without giving the detenu an opportunity to make his submissions with regard to those materials or to adduce evidence to disprove the allegations levelled against him. (4) (a) The continuance of Emergency in as much as it suspends Fundamental Rights	 indefinitely under an executive fiat is unconstitutional. What the Parliament cannot destroy in exercise of its amendatory powers under Article 368	 a fortiori	 the President cannot bury by embalming and encasing the same in a Proclamation of Emergency. Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Article 19 are essential features of the	 Constitution and their indefinite suspension under the cloak of Emergency	 amounts to their destruction; (b) In forming in opinion as to the necessity of proclaiming Emergency under Article 352 of the Constitution	 the President has to act on certain objective facts open to judicial scrutiny. The war having ended more than two years ago	 there is no justification for continuing the Proclamation of Emergency. We will take up contentions (1) and (2) together. As was pointed out by this Court in Natarajan Singh vs State of Madhya Pradesh	(1) where in a habeas corpus petition a Rule Nisi is issued	 it is incumbent upon the State to satisfy the Court that the detention of the petitioner was legal and in conformity not only with the mandatory provisions of the Act	 but is also in accord with the requirements implicit in clause (5) of Article 22 of the Constitution. Since the Court is precluded from testing the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority by objective standards	 it is all the more desirable that in response to the Rule Nisi the counter affidavit on behalf of the State should be sworn to by the District Magistrate or the authority on whose subjective satisfaction the detention order under s.3 was passed. If for sufficient reason shown to the satisfaction of the Court	 the affidavit of the person who passed the order of detention under s.3 cannot be furnished	 the counter affidavit should be sworn by some responsible officer who personally dealt with or processed the case in the Government Secretariat or submitted it to the Minister or other Officer duly authorised under the rules of business framed by the Governor under Article 166 of the Constitution to pass orders on behalf of the Government in such matters. In the instant case	 the counter affidavit of Shri Sukumar Sen Deputy Secretary	 Home	 suffers from two infirmities. Firstly	 the deponent does not swear that he had at any relevant time personally dealt with the case of the detenu. He has verified the correctness of the averments in his affidavit on the basis of facts gathered from tile official records. Secondly	 the explanation given for not furnishing the affidavit of the District Magistrate who had passed the detention order	 is that the Magistrate has been transferred from that District. The explanation is far from being satisfactory. (1) A. I. R. 263 In Ranjit Dam vs State of West Bengal	(1) the reason given for not ' making the counter affidavit by the Magistrate himself	 who had passed the detention order	 was that he had since then been appointed as Secretary of the State Electricity Board. It was held that the reason	 given was not satisfactory. "Shri Sukumar Sen is incharge of a specially created cell in the Government Secretariat of West Bengal	 which maintains the records of all persons detained under the Act. It is true that a similar reason given for not furnishing the affidavit of the Magistrate who passed the impugned order	 was accepted by this Court in J. N. Roy vs State of West Bengal	(2) and instead	 the counter affidavit of the Secretariat official specially entrusted with detention cases was deemed sufficient. But that was so because nothing turnedon it. Nevertheless	 the failure to furnish the counter affidavit of theMagistrate who passed the order of detention	 is an impropriety. In most cases	 it may not be of much consequence but in a few cases	 for instance	 where mala fides or extraneous considerations are attributed: to the Magistrate or the detaining authority	 it may	 taken in conjunction with other circumstances	 assume the shape of a serious infirmity	 leading the Court to declare the detention illegal. In the present case	 too	 the mere omission to file the affidavit of the District Magistrate does not vitiate the detention orders. But it is a circumstance	 among others	 in the light of which contention (2) is to be appreciated. The Act restricts citizens ' personal liberty which is a fundamental ' right under the Constitution. It has therefore to be construed strictly	 as far as possible	 in favour of the citizen and in a manner that does not restrict that right to an extent greater than is necessary to effectuate that object. The provisions of the Act have	 therefore	 to be applied with watchful care and circumspection. It is the duty of the. court tosee that the efficacy of the limited yet crucial	 safeguards provided in the law of preventive detention is not lost in mechanical routine	 dull casualness and chill indifference on the part of the authorities entrusted with their application. Let us therefore see	 whether there has been sucha careful and strict compliance with the legal procedure in the instant case. In the counter affidavit	 the Deputy Secretary has inter alia	 stated that the petitioner is a "veteran copper wire stealer" and there were "reliable informations" before the District Magistrate about his antisocial activities prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community. "Veteran copper wire stealer" implies a long course of repetitive thievery of copper wire. No one is born a knave: it takes time for one to become so. It is manifest that but forthose "reliable informations" showing that the detenu was repeatedly and habitually stealing copper wire	 the District Magistrate	 night not have passed the detention order in question. Those "reliable information" were withheld. No privilege under clause (6) of Article 22 has been claimed in respect of them. Even the main ground viz. that the petitioner is a "veteran copper wire stealer" was not	 as such		 (1) A. 1. R. (2) A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 2143. 264 communicated to the detenu. The ground intimated was that "you have been acting in a manner prejudicial to the Maintenance of Supplies and Services essential to the community". Only one solitary instance of the recovery of stolen copper wire from the petitioner 's house on 3 7 1972 was conveyed to the detenu. Learned Counsel for the State has been fair enough to collect and place before us what the Deputy Secretary in his counter affidavit called "reliable information" on the basis of which the District Magistrate ordered the detention. In this	 under the caption "Criminal Biography"	 is mentioned inter alia	 how the petitioner with his associates organised a gang to steal telegraph copper wire systematically. From what has been said above	 it is clear as day light that all material particulars of the ground of detention which were necessary 	to enable the detenu to make an effective representation	 were not communicated to him. The impugned order of detention is thus 	violative of Article 22(5) of the Constitution	 and is liable to be quashed on that score alone. In view of the above finding	 it is not necessary to decide the. .remaining contentions canvassed by Mr. Jain. Now we take up Writ Petition No. 1662 of 1973. In this case also	 Shri Sukumar Sen	 Deputy Secretary in his counter affidavit .averred that the detenu was a "veteran copper wire stealer" and that the District Magistrate	 Burdwan	 had passed the order of the petitioner 's detention on receipt of reliable information about the illegal	 anti .social and prejudicial activities of the petitioner. Here also	 all the 'material information ' showing or even alleging how the petitioner was a "veteran copper wire stealer" was not communicated to him. Only two instances of theft of electric copper wire which took place on November 6	 1971 and November 25	 1971 were intimated to him. Learned Counsel for the State has placed for our perusal a copy of History Sheet of the detenu on receiving which	 the District Magistrate had passed the impugned order of detention. Among other facts	 it is mentioned therein that on November 3	 1973	 also	 the petitioner alongwith his two associates had committed theft of	 electric copper wire measuring 125 ft. from the electric poles near Hatgarui and a case under section 379	 Penal Code was registered in Police Station Asansol on the same date	 relating to this theft. It is further stated that "from his boyhood the petitioner started mixing up with anti social elements	 wagon breakers and in course of time	 he along with his associates	 indulged in thefts of iron materials	 copper wire and other forms of crime". All this matter including that concerning the theft dated November 3	 1973	 was admittedly not communicated to the detenu. Its non to the detenu is not being justified as privileged under Article 22(6). Thus in this case also	 all the material or adequate particulars relatable to the ground intimated	 were not conveyed to the detenu. It is not possible to predicate how far the mind of the 	detaining authority was influenced in passing the order of detention by the uncommunicative material. By this omission	 the petitioner 's 265. constitutional right of making an effective representation was seriously. jeopardised. In the result the detention of the petitioner (Gudma Majhi) must be held to be illegal. In Writ Petition No. 1681 of 1973	 the ground of detention as communicated to the petitioner	 Kamal Saha	 ran as under : "That on 10 12 1972 at about 19 30 hrs. you and your associates being armed with daggers put all the passengers to fear of death of a IInd Class Compartment of 162 Dn. train at New Barrackpore R.S. and committed robbery in respect of one bundle of woollen Shawl containing 90 pieces valued at Rs. 9500/ from Golam Kadar Kashmiri of 96 Ripon Street Calcutta 16	 you were subsequently arrested. 44 pieces of shawl valued a Rs. 4500/ were recovered later on. Your action caused panic	 confusion and disturbed public order then and there	 you have thus acted in a. manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order". In Para 7 of counter affidavit	 Shri Sukumar Sen	 Deputy Secretary	 stated "that it appears from the records that the petitioner is a veteran Railway Criminal and was indulging in committing robbery in running sub urban trains. It appears that on 10 12 1972 at about 19 30 hours the petitioner and his associates armed with daggers	 committed robbery in a III class Railway Compartment. " The history sheet communicated by the Superintendent of Police to		 the detaining authority states that "he formed and organised a gang and started committing robbery in Sealdah Bongaon Railway Section. 	 This gang is so desperate that nor body of the locality resists them	. even if they commit robbery and other offences even in their very presence. They always move with deadly weapons such as pype guns	 daggers	 bombs etc. by which they intimidate the local people." Thereafter	 instances of two robberies committed by him along with his associates	 on January 30	 197Z and August 1	 1972	 are	 mentioned. The particulars of any past crime committed by him	 which were necessary for showing how he was a veteran railway criminal	 were not communicated to the detenu. In respect of the uncommunicative material	 nor privilege under article 22(6) was claimed '. 266 In the absence of those material particulars	 the detenu could not 	exercise his constitutional right of making an effective representation. In other words	 the grounds communicated to the petitioner suffered .from vagueness. For the reasons aforesaid	 all the three petitions are allowed and the petitioner in each of them is directed to be set at liberty forthwith. Nothing in this judgment	 however shall preclude	 the State Government /District Magistrate	 if so advised	 from passing fresh orders of the detention of the petitioners or any of them	 after full and meticulous 'compliance with the procedure prescribed by law. S.C. Petitions allowed.

Since the matters are similar	 the facts of W.P. No. 1679 of 1973 are as follows: The petitioner was arrested section 3	 sub section (1) and (2) of the . The grounds of detention were that the petitioner	 on 3 7 72	 alongwith his associates kept concealed 20 bundles of Telegraph copper wire in his court yard under ground with a view to dispose the same at an opportune moment. The said telegraph wire were recovered on 3 7 72 on the basis of the confession made by his associates. The petitioner was	 therefore	 arrested because he was acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community. The detention order was challenged on various grounds : (i) That the counter affidavit on behalf of the State of West Bengal was sworn by the Deputy Secretary and not by the District Magistrate	 on the basis of whose subjective satisfaction the detention order was made and therefore	 it was illegal. (ii)From the counter affidavit	 it was clear that there were "reliable informations" and material other than the solitary ground of detention communicated to the detenu and so	 the detenu was unable to make an. effective representation. Therefore	 the detention order was violative of clause (5) of article "I of the Constitution of India etc. Allowing the petitions	 HELD : (1) When a Rule Nisi is issued in a habeas corpus petition	 it is incumbent upon the State to satisfy the court that the detention of the petitioner was legal and in conformity not only with the mandatory provisions of .he Act	 but is also in accord with the requirements of Cl. (5) of article 22 of the Constitution. [262 EJ Niranjan Singh vs State of Madhya Pradesh A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 2215	 referred to. (2)Since the Court is precluded from testing the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority by objective standards	 it is all the more desirable that in response to the Rule Nisi	 the counter affidavit on behalf of the State should be sworn to by the District Magistrate or the authority on whose subjective satisfaction the detention order was made. If for sufficient reason shown to the satisfaction of the Court that the affidavit of the person who passed the detention order could not be furnished	 the counter affidavit should be sworn by some responsible officer who personally dealt with the case in the Govt. Secretariat etc. [262 E F] In the present case	 the deponent did not swear that he had at any relevant time personally dealt with the case of the detenu and secondly	 the explanation given for not furnishing the affidavit of the District Magistrate due to his transfer from that District	 was far from satisfactory. Ranjit Dam vs State of West Bengal A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 1753 and J. N. Roy vs State of West Bengal A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 2143 referred to. 259 (3)The failure to furnish the counter affidavit of the Magistrate who passedthe order of detention is an impropriety. However	 in most cases	 it mayDot be of much consequence; but in a few cases	 for instance. where mala fides or extraneous considerations are attributed to the detaining authority	 it may	 taken in conjunction with other circumstances	 assume the shape of a serious infirmity. [263 C] (4)In the counter affidavit	 it was mentioned that the detenu was a "veteran copper wire stealer" and there were "reliable information" before the District Magistrate. Those reliable information were withheld. The words . veteran copper wire stealer" also implied a long course of repetitive	 thievery of copper wire	 it is manifest that but for those "reliable information" showing that the detenu was repeatedly and habitually stealing copper wire	 the District Magistrate might not have passed the detention order in question. Further	 from the 'Criminal Biography	 supplied by the State	 it was clear that all material particulars of the ground of detention necessary to enable the detenu to make an effective representation were not communicated to the detenu. Hence	 the impugned order of detention is violative of article 22(5) of the Constitution and therefore	 liable to be quashed. Similarly	 the other two petitions were also allowed on the ground that material particulars were not communicated to the detenues and therefore	 the detentions were illegal. [263 G 264 C]