LexGIANI BAKSHISH SINGH versus GOVT. OF INDIA & ORS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
GIAN! BAKSHISH SINGH
V.
GOVT. OF INDIA & ORS
September 18, 1973
[H. R. KHANNA AND A. ALAG!RISWAMI, JJ.]
.\!11i11tt'11a11cc of lnf('/'llaf Sl'curity Act, 1971-s. 3(1) and (2)-Foreigner-
f/ could be detained.
The appellant, a British citizen, was detained under s. 3(2) read with section
3 (I\ (a) (i) and (ii) of Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971. The grounds
of cietention were that he wao;; engaged in subversiv.e activities by instigating and
creating hatred between the Hindus and Sikhs and by calling upon the Sikhs to
establish a separate homeland by resorting to violent methods. In reply to
a
representation by the Akali party for the release of-the appellant from detention
the Chief Minister of Punjab stated in the State Assembly that the appellant was
in Pakistan in November, 1971 aloagwith a Pakistani official, that he had been
phutographc.<l getting down from a Pakistani plane, and that he had made a
statement to a nc\vspapcr that 'India was a prison house for Sikhs; buti he did
not mention any of the grounds contained in the order of detention.
The appellru1fs petition for the issue of a \liTit of habeas corpus on the ground
that he had made arrangements to leave the conntry wa-; dismissed by the High
Court.
Disn1issing the appeal to tbis Court,
HEID: Clauses. (a) an<l (b) of s. 3(1) of the Maintenance of Internal Secu·
rity Act deal \1lith two different kinds of powers.
Under clause (a) power is
giYen to the State to detain any person including a foreigner for any of the pur-
poses mentioned therein and under cl. (b) power is given to detain a foreigner
either for regulating his continued presence in India or for making arrangements
for his expulsion from India.
It is not only in a case where a foreigner wants to
1.:ontinue in India that the po\\'er to detain under cl. (a) \Vas available but it is
available even where, in order to avoid preventive detention, the foreigner offers
l:.l go out of the country.
[667 0-C]
12) It is not correcl to say that cl. (b) is beyond the legislative competence
of Parliament, and, that, therefore, the order under cl. (a) could only be made
with a view to regulate the presence of the appellant in India and not when the
appellant \Vanted to leave India. It is \\'ell established that various legislative
entries should be interpreted in a broad manner and if any legislation could be
brought within the ambit of any one or other of the legislative entries the validity
of the legislation cannot be questioned.
Entry 10, List I, Schedule VII to the
("'onstitution deals \Vith foreign affairs and all matters which bring the Union into
relations with a foreign country, would certainly cover cl. (b). Therefore, it is
within the competence of the detaining authority to exercise the power conferred
on it either under cl. (a) or cl. (b).
[667 C-D]
(3) The decision of this Court in I/ans Muller of iVurenburg v. S11perinte11-
dc11t, Presidency Jail, Ct1fcutta that section 3(1) (b) of Preventive Detention Act
\\'hich is exactly similar to s. 3(1)(b) of the ~faintenance of Internal Security
:\ct conferred power to nse -the means of preventive detention as one of the
nlethods of achieving expulsion of a foreigner Joes not mean thats. 3(1)(a) of
the Maintenance.of Internal Security A.ct cannot be used for the purpose for which
it is piainly intended.
[667 E-Fl
t_..J) The .1ppella11t. taking advantage of the fact that by race he is an Indian,
proposed to indulge in acti\·ities which were- ::i danger to lhe integrity and security
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
BAKSHISH SINGH v. GOVT. OF INDIA (Alagiriswami, /.)
663
cf the country. The first duty of the State is to survive. To do so it had got to
deal with enemies both overt and covert whether they be inside the country O(
outside. The fact that the appellant, if released, would go to England and from
there continue to indulge in activities prejudicial to the security and integrity of
this country was a relevant factor in determining whether he could be detained
when he was found in this country. It is true that there is no law in this country
providing for extradition of persons against whom this country \vould consider it
necessary to pass an order for preventive detention.
But if such a person hap-
pened to come to this country he could be detained. It is not correct that a per-
<on like the appellant could be detained only if it was apprehended that if not
detained Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.