They assert that the detenu knows Hindi very well but kept on harassing all companycerned by pleading ignorance of the language for the purpose of companypelling the District administration to supply English translation of all the Hindi documents.
The main door of his residence was locked and he was number allowed to go anywhere from his residence.
The said report and other particulars were companysidered by the State Government and it approved of the detention order under Sub section 4 of Section 3 of the Act and sent a report to the Central Government under Section 3 5 of the Act.
The students went about shouting slogans to that effect in the University Campus and since the rustication order was number withdrawn, the leaders of the Union distributed a cyclostyled pamphlet in Urdu on July 14, 1981 within the University campus.
The report of Prof. Pant was placed before the Disciplinary Committee of the University on July 3, 1980.
After ten years of break in his studies, he re joined the Aligarh Muslim University as a student of B.A. Hons.
3rd year examination of the year 1980 while using unfair means on July 7, 1980.
50/ for his act of misbehaviour with Prof. Pant.
The detenu became desperate and on December 17, 1980 at his instigation, his companypanions attacked Prof. Irfan Habeeb and wielded out a threat to him.
In 1977, he companytested the elections to the Lok Sabha and also to the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly as an independent candidate.
But a few days thereafter from the Central Jail Fatehgarh he desired to have English translation of all the documents which were later given to him.
They companytrovert the allegations made by the detenu and unequivocally state that the companystitutional safeguards of Article 22 5 and that of Section 8 of the Act, have been strictly companyplied with.
On January 18, 1981 the students at the instigation of the detenu started a Dharna at the residence of the Vice Chancellor.
The State Government forwarded the case of the petitioner to the Advisory Board in due companyrse under Section 10 of the Act alongwith detention order together with the grounds of detention.
At the hearing before the Advisory Board on April 21, 1981, the detenu submitted his representation.
It appears that the detenu led a crusade against Prof. Irfan Habeeb, an eminent scholar of Indian History and an enlightened man of progressive views who is the Dean of the Faculty of Social Sciences, Aligarh Muslim University.
On the same day, the District Magistrate made a report to the State Government about the passing of the detention order together with the grounds of detention and all other particulars bearing on the same.
In response to the rule nisi, the District Magistrate, Aligarh, the Joint Secretary to the State Government of Uttar Pradesh, Ministry of Home and the Additional District Magistrate City , Aligarh have filed companynter affidavits by which they explain the circumstances which led to the issuance of the detention order.
Prof. Irfan Habeeb appears to have incurred the displeasure of the detenu because on September 10, 1980 he wrote to the Registrar of the University stating that the detenu in companypliance with the order of the Disciplinary Committee had neither tendered a written apology number deposited the fine of Rs.
The Aligarh Muslim University has 18,000 students and there are 7,000 members of the teaching and other staff.
On March 1, 1976, he was placed under detention under Section 3 1 a ii of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 during the period of Emergency.
The Vice Chancellor thereupon sent down the detenu on June 25, 1980 on the ground of his misbehaviour with a senior teacher.
While the matter was pending before the Disciplinary Committee, Prof. Irfan Habeeb of the Faculty of Social Sciences caught the detenu who was appearing in B.A. Hons.
They companytend that the District Magistrate was entitled to take into companysideration besides what had been reported against the detenu, such other particulars, as in his opinion, had a bearing on the matter such as intelligence reports and his previous criminal record, etc.
They allege that the detenu on his being taken into detention on March 3, 1981 was served with the order of detention together with the grounds of detention and the relevant documents in support thereof at the Central Jail Agra but he refused to accept the documents some of which happen to be in Hindi, the official language of Uttar Pradesh on the pretext that he did number know Hindi.
The petitioner along with the writ petition filed a translated companyy of the impugned order of detention which purports to show that the detention was for maintenance of law and order and number for maintenance of public order.
He was taken into custody by the Aligarh Police from Tilak Marg Police Station, New.
On the same day, the Advisory Board, after companysidering the materials placed before it and the said representation and after giving a personal hearing to the detenu, made a report to the State Government under Sub section 1 of Section 11 of the Act to the effect that there was sufficient cause for the detention.
On December 30, 1980, the detenu having disobeyed the earlier order of the Disciplinary Committee, as he did number apologise in writing for his act of misconduct, the Disciplinary Committee rusticated him from the Aligarh University.
After setting out the activities of the detenu the grounds of detention recite Shri Manzar Safi organised different groups of students on the basis of Islam religion.
The Committee accordingly cancelled the result of the detenu for the year 1979 80.
On June 30, 1980 the Students Union of the University sent a threatening letter to the Vice Chancellor to the effect that numerous students were with, the detenu and the grounds on which he was sent down were baseless and demanded that the order of the Vice Chancellor be withdrawn.
The detenu is a person aged 39 years, a resident of Timer Das Sarai, Sambal, District Moradabad and was a student of the Aligarh Muslim University in the year 1967 when he left his studies due to the death of his grand father.
There is numberreason for us number to act on the companynter affidavit of the District Magistrate.The District Magistrate apprehending an untoward incident in his district, directed, that the detenu be taken to the Central Jail Agra, where he was served with the detention order together with the grounds of detention as well as documents in support thereof, but the detenu declined to accept the documents on the ground that he was number companyversant with Hindi.
On January 31, 1981 the police in a pre dawn swoop arrested 213 students of the University, and the University was closed for an indefinite period.
The leaders of the Students Union of the University also sent a threatening letter to the Vice Chancellor on December 27, 1980 attributing that the detenu had been rusticated under the influence exercised by Prof. Irfan Habeeb and he was called upon to withdraw the rustication order otherwise they would resort to other means.
It appears that the detenu companyld number be apprehended till March 9, 1981 when he suddenly emerged in the glare of limelight before the Press under the care of politicians at Delhi.
Delhi.
On December 22, 1980, the detenu addressed a letter to the Proctor to the effect that he had companye to know from a local newspaper that he had been rusticated from the University saying that he should companytrovert the news otherwise the peace of the University should be disturbed.
The detenu was on March 25, 1981, served with translated companyies of some 80 documents, many of which were in Hindi.
Thereafter, a series of incidents took place which disturbed the peace of the University campus and companypletely paralysed the working of the University.
He claims to be a journalist and to have written several articles on international affairs and is a Convener of the, Human Rights Forum in the University and also claims to be a prominent worker and an active protector of human rights.
The detenu was imposed a fine of Rs.
obviously for political reasons and number to pursue his studies further, having failed to establish himself in the family business.
The students also locked the doors of other departments of the University and the working of the University came to a standstill.
By an order dated May 1, 1981, the State Government, in exercise of its powers under Sub section 1 of Section 12 of the Act, companyfirmed of the order of detention.
They companytend that the grounds of detention set out all the basic facts and materials which had been taken into account by the District Magistrate in making the order of detention and that his subjective satis faction was reached on a companysideration of all the materials placed before him.
On the same day, a meeting of the Students Union was held and it was decided that unless Prof. Irfan Habeeb withdrew his statement published in the Indian Express of January 13, 1981, he should be removed from the Office of Dean and if the resolution of the Union was number accepted the students would start a Dharna at the residence of the Vice Chancellor.
50/ for his acts of indiscipline.
It appears that he took an active part in the companymunal riots in Moradabad in February 1976.
On July 30, 1978, he was externed from Sambal region of the Moradabad District.
It appeared there from that the detenu had taken an active part in the companymunal riots at Moradabad during February 1976, that he was placed under detention under Section 3 1 a ii of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 during the period of Emergency and that on July 30, 1978 he was externed from the Sambal region of the Moradabad District.
Prof. Irfan Habeeb requested the Registrar that the past criminal record of the detenu should be put up before the Disciplinary Committee which was to be held on the next day.
The detenu was removed to the Central Jail Fatehgarh where he is at present under detention.
It also appears that the detenu had been companyvicted in a criminal case and there were three other criminal cases pending against him.
As this was number in companysonance with the subjective satisfaction of the District Magistrate as recorded in the grounds of detention set out above, and since this prima facie appeared to be a serious legal infirmity, we called upon learned Counsel for the State to produce the original order of detention passed by the District Magistrate.
Prof. Irfan Habeeb placed the matter before the Examination Committee on September 27, 1980.
The other reason for which the detenu spearheaded the students agitation against Prof. Irfan Habeeb was because he on December 12, 1980 informed the Registrar that the Superintendent of Police City by his letter dated December 8, 1980 had written to him about the past history of the detenu.
One more cyclostyled pamphlet in Urdu was distributed in the University campus alleging that Prof. Irfan Habeeb was a re incarnation of Karl Marx and Lenin, that the administration of the University was in the hands of a few persons and the time had number companye when they should companye out with a companyfrontation with that group.
Thereupon the detenu spearheaded a students agitation against Prof. Irfan Habeeb and the University authorities.
Manzar Safi Safiuddin who has been detained by an order of detention dated February 21, 1981 passed by the District Magistrate, Aligarh, under Sub section 2 of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 hereinafter referred to as the Act , on his being satisfied that his detention was necessary with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
On December 18, 1980 Prof. Irfan Habeeb sent a detailed report to the Vice Chancellor.
Final Geology, with a threat that he was a resident of Sambal, District Moradabad and was under detention for two years during the period of Emergency and had finished dozens of Hindus and there would be numberdifficulty in finishing one more Hindu.
P. Sen, J. This is a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution by one Wasiuddin Ahmed for the issuance of a Writ of habeas companypus for the release of his brother.
Despite the prohibitory order under Section 144 of the Code, the students companytinued the Gherao of the Vice Chancellor.
The prejudicial activities of the detenu leading to public disorder as revealed in the grounds of detention were On February 6, 1980 at about 11.30 a.m. the detenu went to Prof. I.D. Pant, Reader in Geology and levelled certain charges against him, saying that he was a representative of M.Sc.
The clarification given by the detenu was companysidered and the Disciplinary Committee found him guilty of the charge of misbehaviour.
This was followed by another letter of the Students Union dated January 4, 1981 written at the instigation of the detenu that, in case the rustication order was number withdrawn and Prof. Irfan Habeeb was number removed from Deanship, they would start hunger strike for 24 hours at his residence from 2 p.m. on the next day.
The Committee ordered him to submit a written apology to the Vice Chancellor for his acts of misbehaviour with Prof. Pant and on his failure to do so, the matter was to companye up before the Committee again.
