The Congress party in Rajasthan used all means to curb the rising tide of the Ram Rajya Parishad, including the government machinery at their disposal. After numerous arrests and raids, Thakur Madan Singh filed a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India:
The petitioner has been detained under the orders of the District Magistrate, Sikar, 18th of December, 1955, under sec. 3 (1) read with sec. 3 (2) of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 on the ground that it was necessary to detain him with a view to preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. After his detention the grounds of his detention were served on him as required by sec. 7 of the Act. These grounds are contained in Annexure B and are 21 in number.
The petitioner presented this petition before this Court on the 6th of January, 1956. His claims are that he is one of the founder of 'Ram Rajya Parishad', a political body in opposition to the Congress and was an active worker and organiser of the said Party in Rajasthan. In the last general elections, in the year 1952, he took vigorous steps throughout the whole of Rajasthan in support of the candidates of Ram Rajya Parishad and it was mainly through his efforts that 28 candidates of the said party and many other independent candidates were elected to the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly and formed a strong opposition party within the said Assembly under the name Samyukta Dal.
He says that he is also the President of Bhooswami Sangh, a body representing the land holders of Rajasthan and that on account of his political activities which were and are of peaceful and non-violent nature, the petitioner has been an eye-sore of the Congress Ministry of Rajasthan in particular and the Congress leaders thereof in general.
The grounds of detention contained in Annexture B which for the sake of convenience are reproduced below: -
(1) In May, 1955, when Shri Madan Singh of Danta was President of the Rajasthan Bhooswami Sangh, he called the Annual session of the Sangh at his residence, namely, Danta House, situated in Jaipur. The session commenced on May 30, 1955 and lasted for five days During this period a number of meetings were held in which programmes and questions of policies were discussed. Object of the session was to organise and consolidate the Sangh. A large number of Bhooswamis and other volunteers were, accordingly summoned from various parts of Rajasthan and accommodated at Danta House and at other places in Jaipur. Funds were collected by Shri Madan Singh to finance the activities of the Sangh. Messing arrangements for the participants were made at the Danta House.
(2) In the aforesaid meetings, Shri Madan Singh took the most prominent part. The gist of the speeches delivered by him was to appeal to the jagirdars to lend support, both in men and money, to the Sangh and to incite them to defy law and disturb public peace and order, even by resorting to acts of violence.
(3) In the meetings on June 2 and 5, 1955, he advocate the creation of a religious State in Rajasthan as opposed to the secular State laid down in the Constitution of India, The Sukhadia Ministry was asked to quit within a period of three days and the audience was incited to open violence under the garb of Satyagrah.
(4) An agitation was, later on, organised at Jaipur under his guidance and supervision on which occasion a number of cyclostyled leaf-lets captioned 'ran Bheri' meaning 'call for battle' were prepared and distributed mostly at Danta House under his instructions. In Ran Bheri No. 2, an open challenge was throne to the Government in the following words - "these scoundrels of democracy have sucked the blood of the people and we shall never tolerate them sitting on the throne of Bhagwan Ram. " Most of the other Ran Bheris were also of a similarly provocative character defaming the Government and officials and preaching violence.
(5) On June 12, 1955, over 600 Rajputs assembled at Danta House from where an effigy of the Rajasthan Government was taken out and burnt on the main road near Chaupar Manak Chowk.
(6) As a result of the inflammatory speeches delivered by and incitement given to Bhooswamis to resort to violence, public order was disturbed and sec. 144 Cr. P. C. had to be promulgated on June 13, 1955 in Jaipur City.
(7) After the promulgation of sec. 144, a meeting was held in Danta House at about 4 p. m. the same day under the chairmanship of Sri Madan Singh. In his presidential speech he incited the jagirdars to violence and exhorted them to retain their jagirs with the help of their swords. It was also decided in the meeting that the order u/s 144 Cr. P. C. should be defied.
(8) As a result of the above, batches of Bhooswamis collected in Johari Bazar and shouted the following slogans on June 14, 1955.
(9) It was no longer considered desirable to let things drift on and Sri Madan Singh was ordered to be detained under Preventive Detention Act by the then District Magistrate, Jaipur.
(10) Later on Sri Madansingh expressed a desire to call off the agitation and to advise his followers to represent their grievances to the Government in a constitutional manner. On this Sri Madansingh was released from detention. The agitation was given up; The Government responded by releasing all those who had been convicted and were confined in Jails, and by withdrawing the pending prosecutions against others. But soon afterwards, Sri Madansingh again started propaganda for defiance of the lawful orders of the Government, and has ever since been acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order which would be evident from the following
(11) Immediately after his release, a meeting (200) on behalf of the Bhooswami Sangh was held on July 21, 1955, at Danta House in which Sri Madansingh delivered a speech stating therein that the settlement had been achieved with the consent of the leaders of All India Kshatriya Mahasabha and other prominent workers. In case the Government does not fulfill the demands of the Sangh, the agitation should be started again from village to village, he said.
(12) A procession of Bhooswamis is was taken out on July 27,1952. from Danta House to Chaupar Manak Chowk where a public meeting was held in which Sri Madansingh accused the C. I. D. and Police for their misbehavior with the Satyagrahis and once more exhorted the audience to re-start the agitation vigorously from village to village in case the Government did not fulfil their demands.
(13) He presided over the meeting of the Working Committee of Bhooswami Sangh held at Danta House on August 5 and 6 at which discussions centered round the alleged given to them by the Government and the letter received from the Revenue Secretary asking them to intimate names of two Bhooswami Sangh representatives for the Committee appointed by the Government to settle their demands. They, however, decided not to do so as the composition of the Committee was not to their satisfaction.
(14) Not content with his anti law and order activities in Rajasthan, Sri Madan Singh visited Ratlam on 21st August, 1955, in connection with the Madhya Bharat Rajput Sewa Sangh Conference. He addressed the representatives and members of the Working Committee (300) the same day, wherein he stated that Satyagrah was the only panacea for their ills.
(15) Addressing a public meeting (2000) under the auspices of the District Bhooswami Sangh held at Sikar on 21st September, 1955, Sri Madansingh openly preached defiance of lawful orders and violence against the Government. Some relevant portions of this speech are given hereunder; ...Rajasthan ke Rajput ab chup nahi baithenge. Ham hamara manter padhenge. . . . . "
(16) Sri Madansingh directed the workers of the Sangh to collect funds and recruit volunteers for restarting the agitation in case the Government did not fulfil their demands. Workers have since been acting accordingly and establishing branches of Bhooswami Sangh at various places in Rajasthan.
(17) To train the volunteers of the Bhooswami Sangh for defiance of law and order, a Bhooswami Sangh and Kshatriya Yuwak Sangh camp was organised at Sirohi on October 23, 1955, which was also attended by Sri Madansingh. On October 25, six batches of volunteers (20 each) were imparted instructions in the method of staging a demonstration during an agitation. They were also given practical training in the method of firing with muzz loading guns and in the ways of counter-acting Lathi charges by the Police.
(18) Meetings of the jagirdars were held at Mitrapura and Bonli (Sawai Madhpur) on November 18 and 19 respectively wherein Sri Madansingh instigated the Jagirdars not to surrender their jagirs on any account and to dishonour the congressmen, when they visit their area in election campaigns.
(19) On November 1, 1955, Sri Madansingh while addressing a meeting of Bhooswami Sangh held at village Toda Bhim (Sawai Madhopur), criticised the bonafides of the present Government and appealed to the jagirdars not to hand over their jagirs to the Government at any cost and asked them to keep themselves in readiness for the Satyagrah which was to be launched shortly.
(20) On November 22, at Danta House, Jaipur, a camera meeting of Bhooswami Sangh was had in which it was decided that another Satyagarh should be launched. In this connection, Sri Madan Singh visited Sikar on the 2nd of December, 1955 and after meeting Colonel Hanuman Singh and other members of Bhooswami Sangh left for Jhunjhunu side.
(21) From a perusal of the above mentioned facts, it is evident that Sri Madan Singh is again acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. There is no doubt that the grounds Nos. 1 to 8 relate to the activities of the petitioner before his previous detention under the orders or J. S. Jhala, dated the 15th of June, 1955. However, it cannot be said that in coming to the conclusion that it was necessary to detain the petitioner u/s 3 of the Act, the District Magistrate was unjustified in taking those activities in to consideration among other activities of the petitioner after his release from detention under the said order.
The object of the Act is to prevent inter alia the disturbance of public order. It is not a punitive Act. If from the activities of a person beyond his jurisdiction an authority entitled to detain is satisfied that if that person is at large, he was likely to disturb the public order, that authority would be perfectly justified to detain that person specially when his one or two activities inside the authority's jurisdiction are such from which also an inference may be deduced that he might disturb the public order. This point too has therefore no substance and must be rejected. Points Nos. 4 and 3.- These points may be dealt with together. Under point No. 4,the argument is two fold: One of them is that) the grounds are irrelevant to the object of the impugned order, namely, the maintenance of public order and the other is that they are vague and are not sufficient to give the petitioner an earliest opportunity of making an effective representation against them. We have carefully gone through all the grounds given in Annexure B and noted herein under point No. 2.
We shall now deal with them one by one from the point of view of relevancy first and from the point of view of vagueness and otherwise thereafter. Ground No. 1 - It was argued by Mr. Chatterji that there is nothing in this ground to how that the petitioner did any act which was prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. From the ground, as it stands, the activities mentioned therein appeared to be innocuous but on a careful thought we have come to the conclusion that this ground is in effect introductory to ground No. 2. This has, therefore, to be read with ground No. 2 and if there is anything in ground No 2 which shows that it is relevant to the object of detention, the ground No. 1 cannot be rejected as being irrelevant to the object of the impugned order Ground No. 2.- In this ground it has been mentioned that the gist of the speeches delivered by the petitioner at the session of Bhooswami Sangh mentioned in ground No. 1 was to appeal to the jagirdars to lend support both in men and money to the Sangh and to incite them to defy law and disturb public peace and order even by re-storting to acts of violence. This ground cannot, therefore, be said to be altogether foreign to the object mentioned in the impugned order and ground No. l also which appears to be part and parcel of this ground cannot be rejected as irrelevant.
Ground No. 3.- This ground also shows that speeches were made at the meetings on 2nd and 5th June, 1955, at which the petitioner incited the audience to open violence under the grab of Satyagrah. This grounds too, has, therefore, relevancy to the object of the impugned order. Ground No, 4.- In this ground it is mentioned that cyclo-styled leaflets captioned 'Ran Bheri' were prepared under the guidance and supervision of the petitioner at Danta House and were distributed mostly at Danta House 'Ran Bheri' means 'call for battle. ' It is also stated that other 'Ran Bheries, were also distributed which preached violence. This ground too is therefore, relevant to the object of the impugned order.
Ground No. 5 - This ground shows that an effigy of the Rajasthan Government was taken out and burnt on the main road near Chaupar Manak Chowk by over 600 Rajputs assembled at Danta House, As the effigy is said to have been burnt on the main road near Chaupar Manak Chowk and hundreds of Rajputs were present there, it cannot be said that this ground was so convincingly irrelevant as being incapable of bringing about satisfaction in any rational person, which has been held to be the test of a completely irrelevant ground to the object of detention by the majority of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Bombay vs. Atma Ram (4 ). Ground No. 6.- This ground also shows that inflammatory speeches delivered and incitement given to Bhooswamis to resort to violence led to the disturbance of public order on account of which sec. 144 Cr. P. C. had to be promulgated on the 13th of June, 1955. in the Jaipur City.
Applying the test laid down by their Lordships in the case of Atma Ram mentioned above in ground No. 5, we cannot say that this ground is altogether forcing to the object of detention. Ground No. 7.- In this ground also it has been stated that the petitioner incited the Jagirdars to violence and exhorted them to retain their jagirs with the help of their swords and it was decided in the meeting held in Danta House under the chairmanship of the petitioner that the order u/s 146 Cr. P. C. should be defined. The subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority from this ground that the petitioner was likely to disturb the public peace and order cannot be questioned. Ground No. 8.- This ground also mentions that the petitioner exhorted the audience to be firm and told them that they had taken their jagirs by shedding their blood and would not part with them. This ground cannot be said to be irrelevant to the object of the impugned order according to the test laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Atma Ram's case (4 ).
Ground No. 9.- This ground is in fact a statement of fact that the petitioner was ordered to be detained under the Act by the then District Magistrate, Jaipur. Strictly speaking it cannot be said to be a ground for his present detention. It has been mentioned simply to show what action the authority had to take on account of the activities of the petitioner mentioned in grounds Nos. 1 to 8. The validity of the order simply because this statement of fact has been introduced in between the activities which preceded and those which followed it cannot be held to be invalid. Ground No. 10.- This ground says that after his release from detention under the order of Sri Z. S. Jhala, the petitioner again started propaganda for defiance of the lawful orders of the Government and has ever since been acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. This opinion is based upon the grounds that follow and its relevancy or irrelevancy can be judged in the light of those grounds.
Ground No 12 - In this ground too all that has been said is that a procession was taken out from Danta House to Chaupar Manak Chowk and a public meeting was held there in which the petitioner accused the C. I. D. and police for their misbehaviour with the Satyagrahis and once more exhorted the audience to restart the agitation vigorously from village to village in case the Government did not fulfil their demands. In this ground too no mention has been made as to what sort of agitation was insisted upon and, therefore, it cannot be said that this has relevancy to the object of the impugned order. Ground No. 13 - In this ground too the only thing that has been said is that the petitioner presided over a meeting of the working committee of Bhooswami Sangh on 5th and 6th August, 1955, wherein discussions centered round the alleged assurances given to them by the Government and the letter received by the Revenue Secretary asking them to intimate names of two Bhooswami Sangh representatives for the committee but it was decided not to send any representative as the composition of the committee was not to their satisfaction. The statements in this ground too also appear to be altogether innocuous and it has, there-force, no relevancy to the object of detention.
Ground No. 14.- In this ground also nothing has been shown which may be said to have relevancy to the object of the impugned order, The only thing said is that at a meeting of the working committee of Bhooswami Sangh at Ratlam, the petitioner said that Satyagrah was the only panacea for their ills. The word 'satyagrah' by itself cannot be taken to mean an activity calculated to disturb public order. Satyagrah literally speaking means adherence to truth and even as equivalent to civil disobedience it does not necessarily convey the idea that any incitement was given to violence or to cause disturbance of public order. It may be mentioned that in ground No. 3, the District Magistrate has said that the audience was incited to open violence under the garb of Satyagrah. There are no such words in this ground to show that incitement to violence was given under the garb of Satyagrah. It would, therefore, be taken that while preaching Satyagrah no such words were used on this occasion from which incitement to violence might be inferred. This ground is, therefore, not relevant to the object of detention.
Ground No. 15.- This ground cannot be said to be irrelevant. The petitioner has been credited with certain remarks which might be taken to imply that the members of his association were incited to commit dacoity if their means of livelihood were taken away from them. The petitioner also exhorted the audience not to obey the orders of the Tehsildar. Considering the audience before which the speech is alleged to have been made it cannot be said that it was altogether foreign to the object of detention. The petitioner is also alleged to have said that mere speeches would not suffice and those who deserve kicks could not be persuaded by mere words. From the short of audience before which these expressions are said to have been used, it cannot be said that no rational human being could consider them connected in some manner with the object of maintenance of public order. The ground cannot, therefore, be said to be irrelevant in the context of detention order. Ground No. 16.- There are no statements in this ground from which it might be said that this ground has any relevancy to the object of detention. Directing the workers of the Sangh to collect funds and recruit volunteers for restarting the agitation in case the Government did not fulfil their demands does not lead to the conclusion that any incitement was given to disturb public order. Compliance by the workers with the direction given in establishing branches of Bhooswami Sangh which has not been shown to have been declared unlawful as yet cannot be said to be an activity prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The ground is, therefore, irrelevant.
Ground No. 17.- This ground shows that at a camp of Bhooswami and Kshatriya Yuwak Sangh at Sirohi, the petitioner was present. At that camp practical training was given to the volunteers in the matter of firing with muzzle loading guns and in the ways and means of counter acting lathi charges by the police. Mock schemes were conducted in which volunteers acted as Collector, Superintendent of Police etc. and a mock determination was conducted in a jungle nearby in which the mob was shown looting the soap of a Baniya, firing shots with a 12 bore gun at supposed S. P. and S. I. and pelting stones at the Police during a mock lathi charges. In this ground there are allegations from which the learned District Magistrate might very well have formed a subjective opinion that the petitioner was acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. This ground cannot be held to be irrelevant to the object of detention.
Ground No. 18.- In this ground it has been stated that the petitioner instigated the jagirdars not to surrender their jagirs on any account and this might be taken to incite the audience to resist the taking of jagirs at any cost. This ground may, therefore, be said to have some relevancy to the object of the impugned order. Ground No. 19.- This ground is also more or less the same as ground No. 18 and this may also be said to have some relevancy to the object of detention. Ground No. 20.- In this ground nothing has been said which would shows that the petitioner was likely to disturb the police order or instigated others to do so. The only thing that has been said is that at a meeting on the 22nd of November, 1955, at Danta House, it was decided that another Satyagarh should be launched as has been said above, simply asking to launch Satyagarh does not necessarily mean to give incitement to disturb public order. Another thing which has been said is that in this connection the petitioner visited Sikar on the 2nd of December, 1955, and after meeting Colonel Hanuman Singh and other members of Bhooswami Sangh left for Jhunjhunu. This act also on its face appears to be altogether innocuous. To our mind, this ground has no relevancy to the object of the impugned order.
Ground No. 21.- This ground only says that from a perusal of the above mentioned facts it was evident that the petitioner was again acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. As has been discussed above, some of the grounds cannot be said to be irrelevant to the object of the impugned order while others appear to be irrelevant. This ground by itself does not disclose any particular fact from which it may be said that it has relevancy or not to the object of the impugned order. We thus come to a finding that grounds Nos. 11 to 14, 16 and 20 of the grounds contained in Annexure B, as they stand, are such as cannot be said to be in any way relevant to the object of detention.
( 3. ) DEALING with the grounds from the point of view of vagueness, we need not take up the grounds one by one as, in our opinion, with the exception of the following grounds all other grounds are such as give sufficient particulars for the purpose of giving the detenu the earliest possible opportunity of making a representation against the impugned order under Art. 22 (5) of the Constitution read with sec. 7 of the Act. The grounds which we consider to be insufficient for the purpose of giving of such opportunity to the petitioner are as follows - Ground No. 3 - In this ground although the dates of the meetings have been given but it has not been said as to what was the language or the gist thereof from which it was concluded that the audience was incited to open violence under the garb of Satyagrah. Satyagrah by itself does not necessarily involve any violence. Some language must have been used advocating Satyagrah from; which the District Magistrate inferred that the audience was incited to open violence under the garb of Satyagrah. If the words or the gist thereof had been given in the ground, it may have been possible for the petitioner to represent that the language used was incapable of inciting the audience to open violence. By not giving the language or the gist thereof in this ground, the District Magistrate denied the petitioner an earliest opportunity of making an effective representation against this ground.
Ground No. 4 - In this ground nothing has been said as to on what dates the cyclostyled leaflets captioned Ran Behri were distributed. The only thing that has been said is that an agitation was organised at Jaipur under the guidance and supervision of the petitioner and on that account a number of cyclostyled leaflets captioned Ran Behri were prepared and distributed. The word 'later on' is very vague. If any dates had been mentioned, it would have been open to the petitioner to plead that on those dates he was not even present at Jaipur. There is still vaguer statement in this ground that "most of the other Ran Bheris were also of a similarly provocative character defaming the Government etc, etc." It does not disclose what was the number of Ran Bheris and what was contained in those Ran Bheris. Only the contents of Ran Bheri No. 2 have been given. So far as the other Ran Bheris are concerned, not even gist thereof has been given. The only thing that has been said is that they were of provocative character defaming the Government and officials and preaching violence. These expressions may be sufficient for the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. But they are certainly not sufficient to give the detenu an earliest opportunity of making a representation against them. If the contents of these Ran Bheris or at least the gist thereof had been quoted as in the case of Ran Bheri No. 2, it might have been possible for the petitioner to show that there was no trace in them of any incitement to violence or to disturb public order. The petitioner was certainly denied an opportunity to make an effective representation against this ground by couching it in a vague language.
Ground No. l0 - In this ground it has been said that the petitioner after his release from detention in June, 1955, has ever since been acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order which would be evident from the following ground. The validity of this ground from the point of view of giving an earliest opportunity to the detenu for making a representation under Art. 22 (5) of the Constitution and sec. 7 of the Act depends upon the grounds that follow. In ground No. 11 to 15, particulars such as dates, the gist of the speech etc. had been given and, therefore, it cannot be said that the particulars were not sufficient for giving the petitioner an earliest opportunity of making an effective representation against the impugned order. In ground No. 16 no dates have been given. It has not been made clear at what places directions were given by the petitioner. It has not been shown in what places in Rajasthan, workers have since been acting according to the directions of the petitioner and establishing branches of Bhooswami Sangh. This ground too is vague to give the earliest opportunity to the petitioner of making an effective representation against the impugned order.
In grounds Nos. 17, 18, 19 and 20, dates have been, the places have also been given and the gists of the speeches wherever necessary have been given. Other sufficient particulars have also been given which might enable the petitioner to make an effective representation at the earliest possible moment against the impugned order. Grounds Nos. 2 and 5 to 8 also give sufficient particulars, viz. , dates, places and gist of the speeches. It has not been shown that in what way they were insufficient to give the petitioner an earliest opportunity of making an effective representation against the impugned order Ground No. 9 is simply a statement of fact showing that the petitioner was ordered to be detained under the Preventive Detention Act by the order of the District Magistrate, Jaipur. No representation could be made against this statement of fact. Thus to our mind it is only Grounds Nos. 3, 4 and 16 which can be said to be so vague as to deny the earliest possible opportunity to the petitioner of making an effective representation against the impugned order.
If the detention is based on such grounds, the detenu has certainly a right to be released.
Even if a single ground is irrelevant, the order cannot be sustained because it will not be possible for the Court to apply any objective test and to say whether the order would have been made only on the basis of the remaining grounds. Similarly if a single material ground is vague, the detenu is denied an opportunity of making an appropriate representation against it at the earliest possible moment and thus his constitutional right under Art. 22 (5) of the Constitution is infringed.
Their Lordships further observed that surely it is upto the detaining authority to make his meaning clear beyond doubt, without leaving the person detained to his own resource for interpreting the grounds. We must, therefore, hold that the ground mentioned in sub-para (e) of para 2 is vague in the sense explained above. Their Lordships further observed "we are of opinion that the constitutional requirement (sufficient to enable him to make a representation) which on being considered may give relief to him must be satisfied with respect to each of the grounds communicated to the person detained, subject of course to a claim of privilege under cl. 6) of Art. 22. "their Lordships were pleased to release the detenue in that case. It has not been shown to us that the particulars which have not been given in grounds Nos. 3,4 and 16 were with-held under a claim of privilege under Cl. (6) of Art. 22. ;
The petitioner has been detained under the orders of the District Magistrate, Sikar, 18th of December, 1955, under sec. 3 (1) read with sec. 3 (2) of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 on the ground that it was necessary to detain him with a view to preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. After his detention the grounds of his detention were served on him as required by sec. 7 of the Act. These grounds are contained in Annexure B and are 21 in number.
The petitioner presented this petition before this Court on the 6th of January, 1956. His claims are that he is one of the founder of 'Ram Rajya Parishad', a political body in opposition to the Congress and was an active worker and organiser of the said Party in Rajasthan. In the last general elections, in the year 1952, he took vigorous steps throughout the whole of Rajasthan in support of the candidates of Ram Rajya Parishad and it was mainly through his efforts that 28 candidates of the said party and many other independent candidates were elected to the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly and formed a strong opposition party within the said Assembly under the name Samyukta Dal.
He says that he is also the President of Bhooswami Sangh, a body representing the land holders of Rajasthan and that on account of his political activities which were and are of peaceful and non-violent nature, the petitioner has been an eye-sore of the Congress Ministry of Rajasthan in particular and the Congress leaders thereof in general.
The grounds of detention contained in Annexture B which for the sake of convenience are reproduced below: -
(1) In May, 1955, when Shri Madan Singh of Danta was President of the Rajasthan Bhooswami Sangh, he called the Annual session of the Sangh at his residence, namely, Danta House, situated in Jaipur. The session commenced on May 30, 1955 and lasted for five days During this period a number of meetings were held in which programmes and questions of policies were discussed. Object of the session was to organise and consolidate the Sangh. A large number of Bhooswamis and other volunteers were, accordingly summoned from various parts of Rajasthan and accommodated at Danta House and at other places in Jaipur. Funds were collected by Shri Madan Singh to finance the activities of the Sangh. Messing arrangements for the participants were made at the Danta House.
(2) In the aforesaid meetings, Shri Madan Singh took the most prominent part. The gist of the speeches delivered by him was to appeal to the jagirdars to lend support, both in men and money, to the Sangh and to incite them to defy law and disturb public peace and order, even by resorting to acts of violence.
(3) In the meetings on June 2 and 5, 1955, he advocate the creation of a religious State in Rajasthan as opposed to the secular State laid down in the Constitution of India, The Sukhadia Ministry was asked to quit within a period of three days and the audience was incited to open violence under the garb of Satyagrah.
(4) An agitation was, later on, organised at Jaipur under his guidance and supervision on which occasion a number of cyclostyled leaf-lets captioned 'ran Bheri' meaning 'call for battle' were prepared and distributed mostly at Danta House under his instructions. In Ran Bheri No. 2, an open challenge was throne to the Government in the following words - "these scoundrels of democracy have sucked the blood of the people and we shall never tolerate them sitting on the throne of Bhagwan Ram. " Most of the other Ran Bheris were also of a similarly provocative character defaming the Government and officials and preaching violence.
(5) On June 12, 1955, over 600 Rajputs assembled at Danta House from where an effigy of the Rajasthan Government was taken out and burnt on the main road near Chaupar Manak Chowk.
(6) As a result of the inflammatory speeches delivered by and incitement given to Bhooswamis to resort to violence, public order was disturbed and sec. 144 Cr. P. C. had to be promulgated on June 13, 1955 in Jaipur City.
(7) After the promulgation of sec. 144, a meeting was held in Danta House at about 4 p. m. the same day under the chairmanship of Sri Madan Singh. In his presidential speech he incited the jagirdars to violence and exhorted them to retain their jagirs with the help of their swords. It was also decided in the meeting that the order u/s 144 Cr. P. C. should be defied.
(8) As a result of the above, batches of Bhooswamis collected in Johari Bazar and shouted the following slogans on June 14, 1955.
Ek Dhakka Aur Do, Sukhadia Sarkar Tor Do;On the arrest of these batches by the Police, a meeting was again held at Danta House at about 8 15 p. m. which was attended by about 500 Bhooswamis. In this meeting also Sri Madan Singh exhorted the audience to be firm. His concluding remarks were that they had taken their jagirs by shedding their blood and would not part with them.
One Two Three Four, Congress Haram Khor.
(9) It was no longer considered desirable to let things drift on and Sri Madan Singh was ordered to be detained under Preventive Detention Act by the then District Magistrate, Jaipur.
(10) Later on Sri Madansingh expressed a desire to call off the agitation and to advise his followers to represent their grievances to the Government in a constitutional manner. On this Sri Madansingh was released from detention. The agitation was given up; The Government responded by releasing all those who had been convicted and were confined in Jails, and by withdrawing the pending prosecutions against others. But soon afterwards, Sri Madansingh again started propaganda for defiance of the lawful orders of the Government, and has ever since been acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order which would be evident from the following
(11) Immediately after his release, a meeting (200) on behalf of the Bhooswami Sangh was held on July 21, 1955, at Danta House in which Sri Madansingh delivered a speech stating therein that the settlement had been achieved with the consent of the leaders of All India Kshatriya Mahasabha and other prominent workers. In case the Government does not fulfill the demands of the Sangh, the agitation should be started again from village to village, he said.
(12) A procession of Bhooswamis is was taken out on July 27,1952. from Danta House to Chaupar Manak Chowk where a public meeting was held in which Sri Madansingh accused the C. I. D. and Police for their misbehavior with the Satyagrahis and once more exhorted the audience to re-start the agitation vigorously from village to village in case the Government did not fulfil their demands.
(13) He presided over the meeting of the Working Committee of Bhooswami Sangh held at Danta House on August 5 and 6 at which discussions centered round the alleged given to them by the Government and the letter received from the Revenue Secretary asking them to intimate names of two Bhooswami Sangh representatives for the Committee appointed by the Government to settle their demands. They, however, decided not to do so as the composition of the Committee was not to their satisfaction.
(14) Not content with his anti law and order activities in Rajasthan, Sri Madan Singh visited Ratlam on 21st August, 1955, in connection with the Madhya Bharat Rajput Sewa Sangh Conference. He addressed the representatives and members of the Working Committee (300) the same day, wherein he stated that Satyagrah was the only panacea for their ills.
(15) Addressing a public meeting (2000) under the auspices of the District Bhooswami Sangh held at Sikar on 21st September, 1955, Sri Madansingh openly preached defiance of lawful orders and violence against the Government. Some relevant portions of this speech are given hereunder; ...Rajasthan ke Rajput ab chup nahi baithenge. Ham hamara manter padhenge. . . . . "
(16) Sri Madansingh directed the workers of the Sangh to collect funds and recruit volunteers for restarting the agitation in case the Government did not fulfil their demands. Workers have since been acting accordingly and establishing branches of Bhooswami Sangh at various places in Rajasthan.
(17) To train the volunteers of the Bhooswami Sangh for defiance of law and order, a Bhooswami Sangh and Kshatriya Yuwak Sangh camp was organised at Sirohi on October 23, 1955, which was also attended by Sri Madansingh. On October 25, six batches of volunteers (20 each) were imparted instructions in the method of staging a demonstration during an agitation. They were also given practical training in the method of firing with muzz loading guns and in the ways of counter-acting Lathi charges by the Police.
(18) Meetings of the jagirdars were held at Mitrapura and Bonli (Sawai Madhpur) on November 18 and 19 respectively wherein Sri Madansingh instigated the Jagirdars not to surrender their jagirs on any account and to dishonour the congressmen, when they visit their area in election campaigns.
(19) On November 1, 1955, Sri Madansingh while addressing a meeting of Bhooswami Sangh held at village Toda Bhim (Sawai Madhopur), criticised the bonafides of the present Government and appealed to the jagirdars not to hand over their jagirs to the Government at any cost and asked them to keep themselves in readiness for the Satyagrah which was to be launched shortly.
(20) On November 22, at Danta House, Jaipur, a camera meeting of Bhooswami Sangh was had in which it was decided that another Satyagarh should be launched. In this connection, Sri Madan Singh visited Sikar on the 2nd of December, 1955 and after meeting Colonel Hanuman Singh and other members of Bhooswami Sangh left for Jhunjhunu side.
(21) From a perusal of the above mentioned facts, it is evident that Sri Madan Singh is again acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. There is no doubt that the grounds Nos. 1 to 8 relate to the activities of the petitioner before his previous detention under the orders or J. S. Jhala, dated the 15th of June, 1955. However, it cannot be said that in coming to the conclusion that it was necessary to detain the petitioner u/s 3 of the Act, the District Magistrate was unjustified in taking those activities in to consideration among other activities of the petitioner after his release from detention under the said order.
The object of the Act is to prevent inter alia the disturbance of public order. It is not a punitive Act. If from the activities of a person beyond his jurisdiction an authority entitled to detain is satisfied that if that person is at large, he was likely to disturb the public order, that authority would be perfectly justified to detain that person specially when his one or two activities inside the authority's jurisdiction are such from which also an inference may be deduced that he might disturb the public order. This point too has therefore no substance and must be rejected. Points Nos. 4 and 3.- These points may be dealt with together. Under point No. 4,the argument is two fold: One of them is that) the grounds are irrelevant to the object of the impugned order, namely, the maintenance of public order and the other is that they are vague and are not sufficient to give the petitioner an earliest opportunity of making an effective representation against them. We have carefully gone through all the grounds given in Annexure B and noted herein under point No. 2.
We shall now deal with them one by one from the point of view of relevancy first and from the point of view of vagueness and otherwise thereafter. Ground No. 1 - It was argued by Mr. Chatterji that there is nothing in this ground to how that the petitioner did any act which was prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. From the ground, as it stands, the activities mentioned therein appeared to be innocuous but on a careful thought we have come to the conclusion that this ground is in effect introductory to ground No. 2. This has, therefore, to be read with ground No. 2 and if there is anything in ground No 2 which shows that it is relevant to the object of detention, the ground No. 1 cannot be rejected as being irrelevant to the object of the impugned order Ground No. 2.- In this ground it has been mentioned that the gist of the speeches delivered by the petitioner at the session of Bhooswami Sangh mentioned in ground No. 1 was to appeal to the jagirdars to lend support both in men and money to the Sangh and to incite them to defy law and disturb public peace and order even by re-storting to acts of violence. This ground cannot, therefore, be said to be altogether foreign to the object mentioned in the impugned order and ground No. l also which appears to be part and parcel of this ground cannot be rejected as irrelevant.
Ground No. 3.- This ground also shows that speeches were made at the meetings on 2nd and 5th June, 1955, at which the petitioner incited the audience to open violence under the grab of Satyagrah. This grounds too, has, therefore, relevancy to the object of the impugned order. Ground No, 4.- In this ground it is mentioned that cyclo-styled leaflets captioned 'Ran Bheri' were prepared under the guidance and supervision of the petitioner at Danta House and were distributed mostly at Danta House 'Ran Bheri' means 'call for battle. ' It is also stated that other 'Ran Bheries, were also distributed which preached violence. This ground too is therefore, relevant to the object of the impugned order.
Ground No. 5 - This ground shows that an effigy of the Rajasthan Government was taken out and burnt on the main road near Chaupar Manak Chowk by over 600 Rajputs assembled at Danta House, As the effigy is said to have been burnt on the main road near Chaupar Manak Chowk and hundreds of Rajputs were present there, it cannot be said that this ground was so convincingly irrelevant as being incapable of bringing about satisfaction in any rational person, which has been held to be the test of a completely irrelevant ground to the object of detention by the majority of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Bombay vs. Atma Ram (4 ). Ground No. 6.- This ground also shows that inflammatory speeches delivered and incitement given to Bhooswamis to resort to violence led to the disturbance of public order on account of which sec. 144 Cr. P. C. had to be promulgated on the 13th of June, 1955. in the Jaipur City.
Applying the test laid down by their Lordships in the case of Atma Ram mentioned above in ground No. 5, we cannot say that this ground is altogether forcing to the object of detention. Ground No. 7.- In this ground also it has been stated that the petitioner incited the Jagirdars to violence and exhorted them to retain their jagirs with the help of their swords and it was decided in the meeting held in Danta House under the chairmanship of the petitioner that the order u/s 146 Cr. P. C. should be defined. The subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority from this ground that the petitioner was likely to disturb the public peace and order cannot be questioned. Ground No. 8.- This ground also mentions that the petitioner exhorted the audience to be firm and told them that they had taken their jagirs by shedding their blood and would not part with them. This ground cannot be said to be irrelevant to the object of the impugned order according to the test laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Atma Ram's case (4 ).
Ground No. 9.- This ground is in fact a statement of fact that the petitioner was ordered to be detained under the Act by the then District Magistrate, Jaipur. Strictly speaking it cannot be said to be a ground for his present detention. It has been mentioned simply to show what action the authority had to take on account of the activities of the petitioner mentioned in grounds Nos. 1 to 8. The validity of the order simply because this statement of fact has been introduced in between the activities which preceded and those which followed it cannot be held to be invalid. Ground No. 10.- This ground says that after his release from detention under the order of Sri Z. S. Jhala, the petitioner again started propaganda for defiance of the lawful orders of the Government and has ever since been acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. This opinion is based upon the grounds that follow and its relevancy or irrelevancy can be judged in the light of those grounds.
Danta Fort in the heart of Danta town, photo courtesy Danta Gram
Ground No. 11 - In this ground the only thing that has been said is that immediately after his release the petitioner addressed a meeting of the Bhooswami Sangh stating therein that the settlement had been achieved with the consent of the leader of All India Kshatriya Maha Sabha and other prominent workers and that in case the Government did not fulfil the demands of the Sangh the agitation should be started again from village to village The only allegation is that the petitioner said that the agitation should be started again from village to village in case the Government did not fulfil the demands of the Sangh. There is no trace in this ground that the agitation exhorted upon should be violent or such as might disturb the public order. The agitation may be constitutional as well as unconstitutional and peaceful as well as violent. Simply because the word agitation has been used, it cannot be said that there was incitement to disturb the maintenance of public order. This ground has, therefore, no relevancy to the object of detention. Ground No 12 - In this ground too all that has been said is that a procession was taken out from Danta House to Chaupar Manak Chowk and a public meeting was held there in which the petitioner accused the C. I. D. and police for their misbehaviour with the Satyagrahis and once more exhorted the audience to restart the agitation vigorously from village to village in case the Government did not fulfil their demands. In this ground too no mention has been made as to what sort of agitation was insisted upon and, therefore, it cannot be said that this has relevancy to the object of the impugned order. Ground No. 13 - In this ground too the only thing that has been said is that the petitioner presided over a meeting of the working committee of Bhooswami Sangh on 5th and 6th August, 1955, wherein discussions centered round the alleged assurances given to them by the Government and the letter received by the Revenue Secretary asking them to intimate names of two Bhooswami Sangh representatives for the committee but it was decided not to send any representative as the composition of the committee was not to their satisfaction. The statements in this ground too also appear to be altogether innocuous and it has, there-force, no relevancy to the object of detention.
Ground No. 14.- In this ground also nothing has been shown which may be said to have relevancy to the object of the impugned order, The only thing said is that at a meeting of the working committee of Bhooswami Sangh at Ratlam, the petitioner said that Satyagrah was the only panacea for their ills. The word 'satyagrah' by itself cannot be taken to mean an activity calculated to disturb public order. Satyagrah literally speaking means adherence to truth and even as equivalent to civil disobedience it does not necessarily convey the idea that any incitement was given to violence or to cause disturbance of public order. It may be mentioned that in ground No. 3, the District Magistrate has said that the audience was incited to open violence under the garb of Satyagrah. There are no such words in this ground to show that incitement to violence was given under the garb of Satyagrah. It would, therefore, be taken that while preaching Satyagrah no such words were used on this occasion from which incitement to violence might be inferred. This ground is, therefore, not relevant to the object of detention.
Ground No. 15.- This ground cannot be said to be irrelevant. The petitioner has been credited with certain remarks which might be taken to imply that the members of his association were incited to commit dacoity if their means of livelihood were taken away from them. The petitioner also exhorted the audience not to obey the orders of the Tehsildar. Considering the audience before which the speech is alleged to have been made it cannot be said that it was altogether foreign to the object of detention. The petitioner is also alleged to have said that mere speeches would not suffice and those who deserve kicks could not be persuaded by mere words. From the short of audience before which these expressions are said to have been used, it cannot be said that no rational human being could consider them connected in some manner with the object of maintenance of public order. The ground cannot, therefore, be said to be irrelevant in the context of detention order. Ground No. 16.- There are no statements in this ground from which it might be said that this ground has any relevancy to the object of detention. Directing the workers of the Sangh to collect funds and recruit volunteers for restarting the agitation in case the Government did not fulfil their demands does not lead to the conclusion that any incitement was given to disturb public order. Compliance by the workers with the direction given in establishing branches of Bhooswami Sangh which has not been shown to have been declared unlawful as yet cannot be said to be an activity prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The ground is, therefore, irrelevant.
Ground No. 17.- This ground shows that at a camp of Bhooswami and Kshatriya Yuwak Sangh at Sirohi, the petitioner was present. At that camp practical training was given to the volunteers in the matter of firing with muzzle loading guns and in the ways and means of counter acting lathi charges by the police. Mock schemes were conducted in which volunteers acted as Collector, Superintendent of Police etc. and a mock determination was conducted in a jungle nearby in which the mob was shown looting the soap of a Baniya, firing shots with a 12 bore gun at supposed S. P. and S. I. and pelting stones at the Police during a mock lathi charges. In this ground there are allegations from which the learned District Magistrate might very well have formed a subjective opinion that the petitioner was acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. This ground cannot be held to be irrelevant to the object of detention.
Ground No. 18.- In this ground it has been stated that the petitioner instigated the jagirdars not to surrender their jagirs on any account and this might be taken to incite the audience to resist the taking of jagirs at any cost. This ground may, therefore, be said to have some relevancy to the object of the impugned order. Ground No. 19.- This ground is also more or less the same as ground No. 18 and this may also be said to have some relevancy to the object of detention. Ground No. 20.- In this ground nothing has been said which would shows that the petitioner was likely to disturb the police order or instigated others to do so. The only thing that has been said is that at a meeting on the 22nd of November, 1955, at Danta House, it was decided that another Satyagarh should be launched as has been said above, simply asking to launch Satyagarh does not necessarily mean to give incitement to disturb public order. Another thing which has been said is that in this connection the petitioner visited Sikar on the 2nd of December, 1955, and after meeting Colonel Hanuman Singh and other members of Bhooswami Sangh left for Jhunjhunu. This act also on its face appears to be altogether innocuous. To our mind, this ground has no relevancy to the object of the impugned order.
Ground No. 21.- This ground only says that from a perusal of the above mentioned facts it was evident that the petitioner was again acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. As has been discussed above, some of the grounds cannot be said to be irrelevant to the object of the impugned order while others appear to be irrelevant. This ground by itself does not disclose any particular fact from which it may be said that it has relevancy or not to the object of the impugned order. We thus come to a finding that grounds Nos. 11 to 14, 16 and 20 of the grounds contained in Annexure B, as they stand, are such as cannot be said to be in any way relevant to the object of detention.
( 3. ) DEALING with the grounds from the point of view of vagueness, we need not take up the grounds one by one as, in our opinion, with the exception of the following grounds all other grounds are such as give sufficient particulars for the purpose of giving the detenu the earliest possible opportunity of making a representation against the impugned order under Art. 22 (5) of the Constitution read with sec. 7 of the Act. The grounds which we consider to be insufficient for the purpose of giving of such opportunity to the petitioner are as follows - Ground No. 3 - In this ground although the dates of the meetings have been given but it has not been said as to what was the language or the gist thereof from which it was concluded that the audience was incited to open violence under the garb of Satyagrah. Satyagrah by itself does not necessarily involve any violence. Some language must have been used advocating Satyagrah from; which the District Magistrate inferred that the audience was incited to open violence under the garb of Satyagrah. If the words or the gist thereof had been given in the ground, it may have been possible for the petitioner to represent that the language used was incapable of inciting the audience to open violence. By not giving the language or the gist thereof in this ground, the District Magistrate denied the petitioner an earliest opportunity of making an effective representation against this ground.
Ground No. 4 - In this ground nothing has been said as to on what dates the cyclostyled leaflets captioned Ran Behri were distributed. The only thing that has been said is that an agitation was organised at Jaipur under the guidance and supervision of the petitioner and on that account a number of cyclostyled leaflets captioned Ran Behri were prepared and distributed. The word 'later on' is very vague. If any dates had been mentioned, it would have been open to the petitioner to plead that on those dates he was not even present at Jaipur. There is still vaguer statement in this ground that "most of the other Ran Bheris were also of a similarly provocative character defaming the Government etc, etc." It does not disclose what was the number of Ran Bheris and what was contained in those Ran Bheris. Only the contents of Ran Bheri No. 2 have been given. So far as the other Ran Bheris are concerned, not even gist thereof has been given. The only thing that has been said is that they were of provocative character defaming the Government and officials and preaching violence. These expressions may be sufficient for the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. But they are certainly not sufficient to give the detenu an earliest opportunity of making a representation against them. If the contents of these Ran Bheris or at least the gist thereof had been quoted as in the case of Ran Bheri No. 2, it might have been possible for the petitioner to show that there was no trace in them of any incitement to violence or to disturb public order. The petitioner was certainly denied an opportunity to make an effective representation against this ground by couching it in a vague language.
Ground No. l0 - In this ground it has been said that the petitioner after his release from detention in June, 1955, has ever since been acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order which would be evident from the following ground. The validity of this ground from the point of view of giving an earliest opportunity to the detenu for making a representation under Art. 22 (5) of the Constitution and sec. 7 of the Act depends upon the grounds that follow. In ground No. 11 to 15, particulars such as dates, the gist of the speech etc. had been given and, therefore, it cannot be said that the particulars were not sufficient for giving the petitioner an earliest opportunity of making an effective representation against the impugned order. In ground No. 16 no dates have been given. It has not been made clear at what places directions were given by the petitioner. It has not been shown in what places in Rajasthan, workers have since been acting according to the directions of the petitioner and establishing branches of Bhooswami Sangh. This ground too is vague to give the earliest opportunity to the petitioner of making an effective representation against the impugned order.
In grounds Nos. 17, 18, 19 and 20, dates have been, the places have also been given and the gists of the speeches wherever necessary have been given. Other sufficient particulars have also been given which might enable the petitioner to make an effective representation at the earliest possible moment against the impugned order. Grounds Nos. 2 and 5 to 8 also give sufficient particulars, viz. , dates, places and gist of the speeches. It has not been shown that in what way they were insufficient to give the petitioner an earliest opportunity of making an effective representation against the impugned order Ground No. 9 is simply a statement of fact showing that the petitioner was ordered to be detained under the Preventive Detention Act by the order of the District Magistrate, Jaipur. No representation could be made against this statement of fact. Thus to our mind it is only Grounds Nos. 3, 4 and 16 which can be said to be so vague as to deny the earliest possible opportunity to the petitioner of making an effective representation against the impugned order.
If the detention is based on such grounds, the detenu has certainly a right to be released.
Even if a single ground is irrelevant, the order cannot be sustained because it will not be possible for the Court to apply any objective test and to say whether the order would have been made only on the basis of the remaining grounds. Similarly if a single material ground is vague, the detenu is denied an opportunity of making an appropriate representation against it at the earliest possible moment and thus his constitutional right under Art. 22 (5) of the Constitution is infringed.
Their Lordships further observed that surely it is upto the detaining authority to make his meaning clear beyond doubt, without leaving the person detained to his own resource for interpreting the grounds. We must, therefore, hold that the ground mentioned in sub-para (e) of para 2 is vague in the sense explained above. Their Lordships further observed "we are of opinion that the constitutional requirement (sufficient to enable him to make a representation) which on being considered may give relief to him must be satisfied with respect to each of the grounds communicated to the person detained, subject of course to a claim of privilege under cl. 6) of Art. 22. "their Lordships were pleased to release the detenue in that case. It has not been shown to us that the particulars which have not been given in grounds Nos. 3,4 and 16 were with-held under a claim of privilege under Cl. (6) of Art. 22. ;
