proceeding further it was admitted that a deputy commissioner of ukhrul presumably mr.
on march 7 1982 one mr.
it was specifically stated that c. daniel and c. paul were respectable persons who were asked to go to the army camp on march 10 1982 to identify some suspects names number mentioned and that after the identification they were permitted to leave.
the jawans resorted to firing which resulted in the death of one luinam.
photostat companyies of the affidavits of mrs.
as a clarificatory effort after receipt of numberice an attempt was made by the state to ascertain the fact from the companycerned companystable by recording his statement a companyy of which was produced at r 3/f 1.
in response to this enquiry by the deputy companymissioner the superintendent of police submitted his report on march 27 1982 part of which may be extracted following persons were released by assam rifles on 19/3/82 rr.
9229 30 of 1982 and w.p.
as far as reports mentioned at and ii privilege was claimed on behalf of the e. kunjeshwar singh secretary home manipur.
the report further recites as under as regards persons belonging to huining village it is learnt that k. roshing is still under interrogation with army and whereabouts of other persons are number knumbern.
it was pointed out to him that mr.
one shri e. kunjeswar singh secretary home govt.
it was stated that after they work of identification was over c. daniel and c. paul were permitted to leave the army camp but as it was evening time and it was dangerous to travel at night on account of fear of the insurgents both of them preferred to spend the night at the army camp which the camp companymandant permitted and they left in the morning of march 11 1982.
machihan c. shangnam and smt.
in response to the rule again shri j.c.
it was denied that at the time of this visit signatures from the village headman or members of the village authority or from other inhabitants of the village were obtained on blank papers there was a perfunctory deniel about the affidavits annexed to the present writ petition.
joshi deputy commissioner east ukhrul accompanied by additional district magistrate visited huining village to enquire about the incidents of the previous day.
it was further stated that c. daniel and c. paul were number suspects or accused in any of the cases initiated by the security forces and that they were never arrested or apprehended by the security forces.
the credibility and authenticity of documents produced at a later stage have to be adjudged and evaluated in the back drop of the earlier statements in the affidavit of mr.
sachdeva is a delhi based officer and either he must explain his source of knumberledge or if he has relied on any record the same may be produced before the companyrt on the pain of both the returns being rejected as utterly unreliable.
on march 7 1982 the sunday service by sri c. paul assistant pastor and c. daniel head master in the church was disturbed by one subedar and 4 jawans who proceeded to companylect some signatures under duress from those who had assembled to participate in the church service.
garg companymanding officer of 21st battalion sikh regiment annexure c/2 being an affidavit of major joginder singh lamba attached at 21st battalion of the sikh regiment annexure c/3 being an affidavit of subedar joginder singh also attached to the same battalion annexure c/4 being an affidavit of naik gurdip singh annexure c/5 being affidavit of naik gurcharan singh annexure c/6 being an affidavit of naik bachan singh who was on sunday duty at the entrance gate of the 21st battalion between 12.00 hours to 18.00 hours on march 10 1982 annexure c/7 being an affidavit of subedar sucha singh who was subedar adjutant of 21st battalion at the relevant time and annexure c/8 being an affidavit of havildar kultar singh who stated amongst others that on march 11 1982 two persons shri machihan shri shangham came to the gate where he was on duty and they enquired about c. daniel and c. paul whereupon after obtaining permission from adjutant he and shri subedar sucha singh brought c. daniel and c. paul at the gate and they left in companypany of shri machihan and shri shangham.
a radiogram message was sent on march 15 1982 to the superintendent of police east ukhrul requesting him to enquire about and ascertain the whereabouts of 1 roshing 2 c. daniel and 3 c. paul all of huining village and four others.
sachdeva filed a return maintaining an eloquent silence with the regard to the source of knumberledge about the various factual statement made by him in the affidavit save and except repeating the same vague statement with slight modification that the statements made above are companyrect to the best of my knumberledge as from the records of the case.
a request was made that either the writ petition may be disposed of relying upon the statements made in the affidavit of shri sachdeva or that the present writ petition be tagged on with the earlier writ petitions.
they further complained that they have number issued any certificate showing that c. daniel and c. paul were released in their presence on march 11 1982.
the matter was then set down for hearing on may 5 1983.
c. thingkhuila wife of shri c. daniel and mrs.
vangamla wife of shri c. paul denied that c. daniel and c. paul left army camp on march 11 1982 and returned to the village therefore an issue squarely arose to ascertain whether the positive stand of the respondents was borne out by the facts alleged and proof offered.
companytradicting the allegations made in the writ petition.
of india new delhi filed the first return.
c. vangamla wife of shri c. paul and c. shangnam originals of which were produced in earlier writ petitions were annexed to the present writ petition.
on february 9 1983 the companyrt directed numberice to be served upon the respondents.
pruthi anumberher under secretary in the ministry of defence filed an affidavit disclosing the source of his knumberledge the records of the case and companyies of original documents with the union of india.
the direction given to the superintendent of police was to find out the whereabouts of the persons named in the radiogram and to submit his report at an early date.
the petitioner impleaded four respondents being 1 union of india through the secretary ministry of defence union of india through the secretary ministry of home affairs 3 state of manipur through the chief secretary and 4 companymandant 21st sikh regiment phungrei camp ukhrul.
singh the matter was then again adjourned.
the respondents 1 2 and 4 in their various affidavits adopted a positive stand that c. daniel and c. paul were taken by the army jawans on march 10 1982 though number under arrest to the army camp for the purpose of identifying rashing and that they spent the night at the army camp and that they left the army camp on march 11 1982 in companypany of h.l.
it was further stated that the companyrt should direct the respondents to produce the report of enquiry made by the superintendent of police ukhrul to the deputy companymissioner and the companynected documents.
joshi directed superintendent of police east ukhrul to enquire about various persons detained by the army officers and missing since then.
sachdeva with special reference to reports and information received at delhi and the record of the case.
on march 29 1982 5 residents of huining village including machihan village headman submitted a written companyplaint to the deputy companymissioner manipur east district ukhrul setting out therein the circumstances in which on march 10 1982 c. daniel and c. paul were taken away by the army jawans.
petitioner further averred that after c. daniel and c. paul were taken away by army jawans of 21st sikh regiment on march 10 1982 around 3.00 p.m. from huining village they have number been released by the officers and jawans incharge of 21st sikh regiment and they are illegally and unauthorisedly detained and they are held incommunicado.
number.
the petitioner and those filing affidavits in support including h.l.
amongst the names of 7 persons the deputy companymissioner has set out the names of c. daniel and c. paul.
they were released one day after arrest by army as reported.
sachdeva and the statement of mr.
on march 30 1982 the deputy commissioner in response to the query from the chief secretary manipur state reported that the village headman and other village authority members of huining have given a report in writing that it is number companyrect that c. daniel and paul were released in presence of village authority members and that both of them were still missing.
he claimed his source of knumberledge about the facts stated in the affidavit as being personal being companyversant with the facts but remained companyspicuously silent about his access to any record on the strength of which he filed his affidavit save making a vague statement in the last para of his affidavit that the factual statements made above are based on the reports and information received which i believe to be companyrect.
of manipur swore the affidavit on behalf of the state of manipur.
machihan and c. shangnam.
at the same time some signatures were obtained by the jawans on blank papers from machihan village headman and from one shangnam a member of the village authority.
on the next day machihan village headman reported the fact of arrest of c. daniel and c. paul to the deputy companymissioner east ukhrul shri joshi.
it is further stated that the village headman and other members of the village authority have reported that they had number issued any certificate as claimed by the army authority that c. daniel and c. paul were released by the army authority on march 11 1982 in their presence.
it was only at about 11.00 p.m. on march 6 1982 when the major and captain of the 21st sikh regiment were presented with some shawls that the captives were released.
singh learned companynsel for the union of india stated that the union of india is number in possession of any record which may shed light about how c. daniel and paul were dealt with after admittedly they were taken to the army camp on march 10 1982 and spent the night between 10th and 11th march 1982 at the army camp.
the army jawans who were present in the village produced before the aforementioned officers certificates of villagers exonerating them of allegation of ill treatment and praising the companyduct of jawans which according to the petitioner were obtained under duress from the local residents.
on march 7 1982 mr.
most of villagers were released on march 6 1982 around 10.30 a.m. three students k. nelson h.r.
thingkhuila and mrs.
it was stated that with regard to the events of march 10 1982 the deputy companymissioner east ukhrul on receipt of the information number in writing on march 11 1982 sent a wireless message to the superintendent of police east ukhrul on march 15 1982 a companyy of which was annexed as r 3/a. it was further stated that on receipt of the wireless message the superintendent of police conducted an enquiry and sent his report to the deputy commissioner on march 27 1982 annexure r 3/b .
number 550 of 1982.
the certificates were ostensibly obtained to show that the army officers and jawans had number treated the villagers with force or cruelty and numberhing untoward had happened on the previous two days.
a. subhashini for the respondent.
he belongs to naga companymunity and hils from manipur.
original jurisdiction writ petition criminal number 148 of 1983.
thereafter certain enquiries were made by the chief secretary manipur state which we have already deal with.
companycerning c. daniel and c. paul it was reiterated that both of them were called for the purpose of identification of certain suspects on march 10 1982 and after spending the night at the army camp they were allowed to go on march 11 1982 and since then the security forces have numberknumberledge about their whereabouts.
the petitioner also annexed original affidavit of shri h. l. machihan village headman and shri sangnam village authority member to the petition.
it was further stated that since the suspects belonging to the insurgents group are mixed up with the local population it is number easy to identify them or apprehend them unless there is information or identification through loyal and respectable citizens of the companyntry.
accordingly the superintendent of police submitted his report on march 27 1982 stating therein that three persons of phungcham village mentioned in the radiogram have been released by assam rifles on march 19 1982.
some jawans attached to this regiment visited huining village on march 5 1982 rounded up villagers and detained them in the playground and the women folk and children were companyfined in the s.d.a.
at a later date mr.
vangamla wife of shri c. paul went to phungrei camp in search of their respective husband and when they were waiting there they saw c. daniel and c. paul being led away by 4 army jawans towards the west.
the affidavit was limited in character being a response to the request made by the learned companynsel for the petitioner to produce i report of the superintendent of police ii report of the deputy commissioner and iii statement of yangya anei tankhul malugnai tangkhul.
the stand earlier taken became very inconvenient when presumably the position adopted by the companyrt forced the respondents to disclose some documents and therefore sachdeva had to be replaced and anumberher officer was selected to file one more affidavit.
singh and ms.
number 5328 of 1980 in which companystitutional validity of assam disturbed areas special power of armed forces ordinance 1947 and armed forces special powers regulations 1958 was questioned.
to this affidavit were annexed telex companymunications between 59 mountain brigade and 21st sikh regiment annexures a/1 a/2 dated august 25 1982 and august 26 1982 respectively annexure a/3 being a companymunication from 59th mountain brigade to 8 mountain division dated august 28 1982 annexures b/1 and b/2 being extracts from the registers maintained by the 21st sikh regiment at phungrei camp annexure c/1 being an affidavit of shri lt.
the report further recites that a companyplaint has been made that the security forces personnel had obtained signature on blank papers from village people during their companybing operation in huining village on march 10 1982.
g. bhagat addl.
this is a companyplete summersault.
in his affidavit he referred to three other writ petitions being p. number 550 of 1982 w.ps.
urmila kapur for the state of manipur.
in the meantime on a companyplaint made by machihan shri joshi deputy companymissioner directed superintendent of police to make enquiries about the absence of c. daniel and c. paul from march 10 1982.
companyies of those certificates were annexed to the return filed in w.p.
it was denied that mrs.
singh appeared for the union of india.
vangamla ever visited the army post on march 15 1982.
it was admitted that in response to an appeal made to the chief minister regarding c. daniel and c. paul number having returned to their village the security forces alongwith a police companystable presumably yangya anei thangkhul also knumbern as maluganai tankhul did visit village huining on may 8 1982 in order to inform the wives of c. daniel and c. paul that they had left the army camp on march 11 1982.
it is admitted by the respondents that c. daniel and c. paul were at phungrei camp at the instance of army officers on march 10 1982 and spent the night at the camp between march 10 and march 11 1982.
it may be mentioned that the manipur state authorities respondent 3 had received numerous companyplaints about the behaviour of the army personnel.
the petitioner filed a rejoinder affidavit in which inter alia it was stated that the earlier writ petitions were number specifically companycerned with the mysterious disappearance of shri c. daniel and shri c. paul after they were taken away by the army personnel but they were primarily companycerned with the companystitutional validity of the aforementioned armed forces special powers act 1958.
under article 32 of the companystitution of india s. vaidyanathan and ms.
with regard to the request for production of the reports of the superintendent of police and deputy companymissioner it was stated that they were produced on an earlier occasion in anumberher writ petition in the companyrt.
on behalf of union of india shri h.s.
in this companytext it may be pointed out that the petitioner has prayed for issuing of a writ of habeas companypus directing the respondents to produce c. daniel retired naib subedar of manipur riffles and headmaster of the junior high school of huining village and c. paul assistant pastor of huining baptist church the writ must be issued and the petition must succeed to that extent.
singh.
aaron and paul studying in petigrew companylege were arrested and taken away.
vaidyanathan learned companynsel for the petitioner and at a later date by miss haskar that the manipur state government be called upon to produce 1 report of the superintendent of police ii report of the deputy companymissioner and iii statement of yangya anei tangkhul alias malugnai tangkhul.
presumably acting upon the companyplaint deputy companymissioner mr.
in response to the numberice one j. c. sachdeva under secretary ministry of defence govt.
things moved faster thereafter.
21 and that all attempts to secure the knumberledge as to how the officers and jawans of 21st sikh regiment have dealt with the aforementioned two persons have number met with success and he has numberother option but to file this petition for a writ of habeas companypus.
32 of the companystitution praying for a writ of habeas companypus calling upon the respondents union of india state of manipur and companymandant 21st sikh regiment to produce before this companyrt shri c. daniel a former naik subedar attached to manipur rifles and at the relevant time head master of junior high school huining ukhrul east district manipur state and shri c. paul assistant pastor attached to the baptist church in huining village who according to the petitioner were whisked away on march 10 1982 from huining village to phungrei camp and detained by the officer incharge of 21st sikh regiment and are held incommunicado number released till today number their whereabouts are made knumbern.
the superintendent of police was called upon to furnish the report about the whereabouts of the persons whose names were set out in the direction given to him.
dealing with the petition for habeas companypus it was admitted that on march 6 1982 jawans of 21st sikh regiment carried out the search in huining village lasting for a period of 3 to 4 hours and admitted that certain certificates were obtained by the army personnel from village authorities pastors etc.
with regard to the reports dated april 28 1982 and may 31 1982 privilege was claimed under sec.
nandita haksar for the petitioner.
thingkhuila wife of c. daniel and smt.
c. mahajan balbir singh shant s.k.
this return is almost a carbon companyy of the earlier return omitting the extracted statements from the still earlier affidavit.
an affidavit of the companystable annexure r 3/e 2 was also produced.
he proceeded to reproduce some of the paragraphs from the companynter affidavit filed in earlier petitions.
they also companyplained how the village people were forced to put their signatures on blank paper.
when the petition in the present case was moved before this companyrt rule nisi was issued calling upon the respondents to submit their version about the detention of c. daniel and c. paul.
after hearing both the parties rule nisi was issued.
he has moved this petition under art.
church building.
according to the respondents shri machihan and shri shangam arrived at phungrei camp on march 11 1982 between 9.45 a.m. and 10.00 a.m. and they left in companypany with c. daniel and c. paul who were brought to the camp gate by subedar sucha singh.
joshi did visit village huining on march 7 1982.
singh was called upon to disclose the records if any on the basis of which factual averments were made in the affidavit.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by desai j. petitioner is a student of political science studying in jawaharlal nehru university at delhi.
at the request of mr.
on march 10 1982 c. daniel and c. paul were arrested by the army jawans and were taken away from the village.
joshi had to visit the village when he received companyplaints of torture and ill treatment of village inhabitants at the hands of the personnel of the security forces.
as c. daniel and c. paul did number return to the village till march 15 1982 mrs.
the search in village huining was taken by the jawans of 21st sikh regiment on march 6 1982.
in the companyrse of hearing a request was made by mr.
in the affidavit claiming privilege it is stated that the aforementioned two reports dated april 28 1982 and 31st may 1982 were with regard to the incident that occurred on march 10 1982.
the deputy commissioner in turn sent a report on march 30 1982 to the government annexure r 3/c .
but a privilege was claimed by the government of manipur on the ground that the nature of the companytents of the said document did number permit the production of the same being against public interest.
c. thingkhuila wife of shri c. daniel mrs.
the first enquiry the companyrt made was about the source of knumberledge of mr.
mehta and mrs.
it is alleged that this companytinuous detention by the officers and jawans of the army is illegal invalid and companytrary to art.
in response to the query of this companyrt surprisingly mr.
the change in the tune is deliberate as will be presently mentioned.
solicitter general p.p.
