JAGAN NATH SATHU versus THE UNION OF INDIA

Citation: [1960] 2 S.C.R. 784 · Decided: 20-01-1960 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

i9fio 
January 20. 
784 
SUPREME COURT REPOR.TS [1960 (2)) 
JAGAN NATH SATHU 
v. 
THE UNION OF INDIA 
(B. P. SINHA, c. J., JAFE.R IMAM, A. K. l'ARKAH, 
K. N. \VANCHOO AND J. c. SHAH, JJ.) 
Preventive detention--Status of Pakistan in relation to India--
If a foreign pmver-Grounds of detention-Principles of natural 
justice-Preventive Detention Act. I950 (4 of I9SO),-Constit1dion 
of India, Item 9, List I, Seventh Schedule. 
The petitioner was detained by an order of the Central 
Government under s. 3, ofj the Preventive Detention Act, r950. 
The Advisory Board which considered the petitioner's case in 
accordance with the provisions of the Act did not recommend that 
the order of detention should be withdrawn. 
The allegations 
against the petitioner were that he \Vas carrying on propaganda 
.of hatred and contempt against the Government of India and the 
State of Jammu :lJ)d Kashmir by sending for publication in a 
widely published foreign Newspaper, false, one-sided and mis-
leading infor1nation about the adn1inistration of the State and the 
condition of India in general and the said State in particular. 
1'he petitioner's contentions, inter a1ia, ¥/ere that being a member 
of the Commonwealth, 
Pakistan, where the fic,vspaper vvas 
published, was not a Foreign State and could not therefore be 
regarded as a Foreign power, that the principles of natural 
justice where violated by the Advisory Board in considering the 
respondent's case in his absence and that n1ateria1s placed before 
the Advisory Board were not supplied to him. 
Held, that on a correct :interpretation of the expression 
"foreign affairs" appearing in Item 9, List I, Seventh Schedule 
of the Constitution and the words "the relations of India with 
foreign powers" in s. 3 of the Act, Pakistan must be regarded as 
a foreign power although that country might be a member of the 
-
' 
Commonwealth like India. 
Under Art. 367 (3) a country might 
-
not be regarded as a Foreign State for the purposes of the Consti-
tution but that country might be a foreign power for other 
purposes. 
The Common\vcalth is an Associatjon of Nations each 
having a sovereign status independent of the other in its internal 
and foreign affairs. 
The provisions of s. ro of the Act did not offend against the 
principles of natural justice and the procedure adopted by the 
Advisory Board in the present case was not in Contravention 
there?!· 
0.RIGINAL JumsmcTION: Writ Petition No. 170 
of 1959. 
Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of 
India for enforcement of Fundamental rights. 
T 
. ._ 
-
-
,, 
f 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
785 
R. V. S. Mani. for the patitioner. 
r960 
C. K. Dephtary, Solicitor-General of India, B. R. L. Jagan Nath sathu 
Iyengar ii.nd R. H. Dhebar, for the respondent. 
v. 
1960, January 20. The Judgment of the Court The Union of India 
was delivered by 
IMAM J.-This petition was heard on January 4, 
Imam J . 
1960, and we intimated that it was being dismissed 
and reasons for the same will follow later. We 
proceed to give our reasons now. 
The petitioner was detained by an order dated 
May 4, l!J59, of the Central Government under the 
provisions of s. 3 of the Preventive Detention Act, 
1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The grounds 
of detention dateq May 7, 1959, were served on the 
petitioner. His case was considered by the Advisory 
Board constituted by the Central Government under 
s. 8 of the Act. On the report of the Advisory Board 
the Central Government by its order dated June 23, 
1959, directed that the petitioner be detained until 
May, 4 1960. It is against this order of detention 
that the present petition under Art. 32 of the Constitu-
tion has been filed by the petitioner. 
_ 
The grounds of detention contained 5 grounds 
upon which the Central Government was satisfied that 
it was necessary · to detain the petitioner as he was 
likely to act further in a manner prejudicial to the 
security of India and the relations of India with 
foreign powers. It was further stated in the grounds 
of detention that the Central Government considered 
it against the public interest to disclose to the petitioner 
any facts or particulars as to dates, persons, places, 
nature of activities and the assistance given by him 
other than those which had been· mentioned in .the 
grounds of detention. The grounds of detention 
further mentioned that some of the specimen des. 
patches sent by the petitioner and some of the reports 
appearing
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.