DR. RAM KRISHAN BHARDWAJ versus THE STATE OF DELHI AND OTHERS

Citation: [1953] 1 S.C.R. 708 · Decided: 16-04-1953 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. PATANJALI SASTRI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

1953 
April 16. 
708 
SU'PREME COURT REPOR'.I'S 
(1953] 
DR. RAM KRISHAN BHARDWAJ 
THE STATE OF DELHI AND OTHERS. 
[PATANJAI.t BASTRI C.J., MUKHER.JEA, s. R. DAS, 
Gm:LAM HASAN and BHAGWATI JJ.] 
Preventive Detention Act, 1952, s. 3-Gonstitution of India, 
1950, Arts. 21, 22(5)- Detenu' s ro:ght to be supplied with full parti-
culars- Vague ground-Right to be released-Vagneness of one of 
several groitnds--E:ff'ect of. 
Under Art. 21 (5) as interpreted by an earlier decision of this 
court a person detained under the Preventive Detention Act is 
entitled, in addition to the right to have the ground of bis deten-
tion communicated to him, to a further right to have particulars 
as full and adequate as the circumstances permit furnished to him 
as to enable him to make a representation against the order of 
detention and the sufficiency of "Particulars conveyed in the second 
communication is a justiciable issue, the test being whether they 
are sufficient to enable the detained person to make a representa-
tion which on being considered may give him relief. 
The constitutional requirement that the grounds must not be 
vague must be satisfied with rEispect to each 0£ the grounds com-
municated to the person detained subject to the claim of privilege 
under cl. (6) of Art. 22 of the Constitution. 
· 
VVhere one of the grounds mentioned was "you have been 
organising the movement (Pra,a Parishad Movement) by enrolling 
volunteers among the refugees in your ca.pa.city as President of 
the Refugee Association of Bara Hindu Rao": 
Held, that this ground was vague and even though the other 
grounds were not vague the tletention was not in accordance with 
the procedure established by Jaw and was therefore illegal. 
Dictum: Preventive detention is a serious invasion of per-
sonal liherty and such meagre safeguards as the Constitution has 
provided against the improper exercise of the power must be 
jealously watched and enforced by the Court. 
0RIG1NAL JURISDICTION: Petition No. 67 of 1958. 
Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India 
for a writ in the nature of habeas corpus. 
Veda Vyas (V. N. Sethi and S. K. Kapur, with 
him) for the petitioner 
M. O. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India (G. N. 
Joshi, with him) for the respondents, 
• 
S.C.R 
SUPREME COURT HEPOHT::; 
7U9 
1953. 
April 16. 
The Judgment of the Court was 
ms 
delivered by 
PATANJALI SASTRI C.J.-This is a petition under 
article 32 of the Constitution tor th~ issue of a writ 
in the nature of habeas corpus directing the release of 
the petitioner Dr. Ram Krishan Bhardwaj who is a 
medical practitioner iu Delhi and is now said to ·be 
under unlawful detention. 
The petitioner was arrested on the 10th March, 
1953, under an order of the District :Y1agistrate of 
Delhi made under section 3 of the Preventive Deten-
tion Act as amended. 
The grounds of detention 
were communicated to the petitioner on the 15th 
March, 1953. 'rhe first paragrap<l of that communi-
cation states that " the Jan t:iangh, the Hindu Maha-
sabha and the l:tam Rajya Parishad have started :n1 
unlawful campaign in sympathy with 
the Praja 
Parishad movement of Kashmir for defiance of the 
law, involving violence and threat to the mainten-
ance of public order" as evidenced by the sub-
paragraphs which folluw. '!'he incidents referred to in 
sub-paragraphs (a) to (l) are said to have ranged from 
the 4th to the 10th March, 1953, the date on which 
the petitioner was arrested, but they do not directly 
implicate the petitioner. '!.'hey merely give particu-
lars of the alleged unlawful activities of the three 
political organizations referred to 
above. 
Sub-
paragraph (m) is important, as on it is founded the 
first contention of Mr. Veda Vyas, the learned counsel 
for the petitioner. It runs as follows:-
"(m) On the evening of 11th March, 1953, there 
was very heavy brick-batting indulged in by or 
at the instance of Jan l:langh and Mahasabha workers 
in t:iabzimandt when the police dispersed a Jan Sangh 
and Hindu Mahasabha procession and several persons 
including policemen, 
journalists and other non-
ofticials were injured. An assault was made on Miss 
Mridula 8arabhai and Sri Dan Dayal one of her 
associates received a stab injury." 
Dr. Ram 
Krishan 
Bhardwaj 
v. 
The State of 
Delhi 
a.nd Other a. 
Patanjali 
811st?-i 0. J. 
1958 
Dr. Ra1n 
Krishan 
Bhardwaj 
v. 
The State of 
Delhi 
and Others. 
Patanjali 
Sastri 0. J. 
710 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1953] 
It will be noticed 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.