STATE OF MAHARASHTRA versus PRABHAKAR PANDURANG SANGZGIRI AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1966] 1 S.C.R. 702 · Decided: 06-09-1965 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. SUBBA RAO · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 8 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

!!'TATE OF MAHAR.\SIITRA 
V. 
PRABHAKAR PANDURANG SANGZGIRI AND ANOTHER 
September 6, 1965 
[K. SuBB., RAo, K. N. WANCHoo, J. C. SHAH, s. M. Snrn 
AND V. RAMASWAMI, 1J.J 
Defence of India Rules, 1962, sub-r. 4 of r. 30 and Bombay Comlitioru 
of Detention Order, 1951-Book writlen by detenu in jail-RequeM to send 
It out of jail for publication-State Government wh<ther can refuse request 
-High Court whether can be moved under Con.r1itution of India, Art. 226. 
The first respondent was d~ained by the GO\·ernment of Maharashtra 
under r. 30(1 )( b) of the Defence of India Rules, 1962. TM condilions of 
detention under sub-rule 4 of r. 30 of the said rules were prescribed to be 
the same as those under the Bombay Conditions of Delention Order, 1951. 
While so delained the first respondent wrote a book of scientific interest and 
sought permhsion from 1he Slate Gov-~rnmcnt to send ft out of jail for 
publication. The request having been rejecled he filed a writ petition under 
Art. 226 of the Constitution praying for a direclion to the State Govern-
ment to permit him to send out 1he manuscript for publication. The High 
Court hc!d th:1t 1he hook was in no \\'ay prcju<liciJI t9 the def~nce of Jndia 
etc., and allowed the petilion. The Stale Government by special leave 
appealed to this Courl. 
It was conlended on behalf of the appellant that the first respondent 
not being a free person could exercise only such privileges as were conferred 
on him by the order of detcniion, and the Bombay Conditions of Detention 
Order, 1951 which rc~ula1cd -the terms of the r-.!soondent'9 dcten'ion did 
not confer on him any privilege or right to write a book and send it out of 
the prison for publication. 
HELD : (i) It cannot be said that the Bombay Condition• of Detention 
Order, 1951 which lays down the conditions regulating the restrictions on 
the liherty of a detenu, conferred only certain privileges on the detenu. 
U this argument were to be accepted it would mean that 1he detcnu could 
be starved to death, if there wa' no condition providing for ghin~ food to 
tb" detenu. 
In the matter of liherty of a subject such a construction shall 
not be given to the said rules and regulations unless for compelling reasons. 
[708 C-DJ 
(ii) The s3id condition! regulating the res!riction on the personal Jihcrty 
of a detenu are not orivilcgcs conferred on him, hut are the conditions 
1t1bjec:t to which ~i.s liberty can ~ restricted. 
As the~e.,i.s no condition in 
the Bombay c:ondt'lOfi<; of ~tent~on Order. 19.'51. proh1b1.1ng a dctenu from 
writing a book or sending i~ to: publication, the St~te of Mahar:t<;htn• in 
refusing to allow the same tnfnnged the personal hbertv .of the first rc.1-
pondcnt in derogation of the )a\v \vhcrcundcr he was dct:uned. [708 El 
(iii) The effect of the President'~ order under Art. 359 of the C.onsti!u-
tion was that the right to move the High Court o~ the Supreme Court remnm-
ed suspended during the period of emer~ency. tf a person wa. depnved of 
hi• personal liherlv under the Defence of India Act. 1962. or any rule or 
order made thereunder. If a person was deprived of hi• .personal lihe_rtY 
not under the Act or rule or order made thereunder but 1n contravention 
thereof his right to move the said courts in that regard would not be 
suspended. [705 C-Dl 
j 
A 
• 
B 
c 
D 
• 
• 
E 
F 
G 
• 
H 
• 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
' 
Ff 
• 
STATE v. PANDURANG (Subba Rao, 1.) 
703 
Since the State Government's refusal to allow publication of the first 
respondent's book was in contravention and derogation of the law under 
which he was detained he had the right to move the High Court under 
Art. 226 and the said High Court was empowered to issue an appropriate 
writ or direction to the said Government to act in accordance with law. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 
107 of 1965. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order, dated 
June 22, 1965 of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Applica-
tion No. 613 of 1965. 
Niren De, Additional Solicitor-General and B. R. G. K. Achar, 
for the appellant. 
R. K. Garg, D. P. Singh, M. K. Ramamurthi and S. C. Agar-
wala, for respondent No. 1. 
The Judgment of the Coun was delivered by 
Sobba Rao J. 
Prabhakar Pandurang Sanzgiri, who has been 
detained by the Government of Maharashtra under s. 30 (1 )(b) 
of the Defence of India Rules, 1962, in the Bombay District 
Prison in order to prevent him from acting in a manner pre-
jµdicial to the defence of India,

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