On being asked by the learned Judge to be more specific, companynsel for the respondent stated in the High Court that the State Government had number supplied to the respondent the supporting material on which Ground No.
This statement was also published in the various newspapers.
1 of the grounds of detention was based.
A1, read thus While speaking he said that on July 2 by bringing S.F., Punjab Police and other police the unarmed Nihangs were fired at.
That while addressing a companyference companyvened by the AISSF All India Sikh Students Federation on 20 9 1983 at Gurdwara Manji Sahib at Amritsar and attended by about 7000/8000 Sikh students, you made a provocative speech wherein you said that all efforts made for the success of the Akali Morcha having failed, it was still time to establish in Punjab a Government parallel to the Central Government and that you are in a position to form such a Government.
From the Judgment and order dated 29th November, 1983 of the Punjab Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in Criminal Writ Petition No.
The supporting material, by which is meant particulars of the grounds of detention, was supplied to the respondent along with the grounds.
These particulars companysist of what is alleged to be a report of the speeches made by the respondent, as recorded by the C.I.D. branch of the Punjab Police.
A case F.I.R. No.
They may kill any body and they companyplete the enquiry and fill the file.
295 dated 27 9 1983 under section 124 A Indian Penal Code, and section 13 of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967, was registered at Police Station E Division, Amritsar, which is under investigation.
Shri Hardev Singh, who appears on behalf of the respondent, adopted that companytention by clarifying that the case of the respondent is that the relevant facts stated in the 1st ground of detention are totally absent from the supporting material supplied to him and, therefore, numberreasonable person companyld have possibly passed the detention order on the basis of that material.
You also made a suggestion that the Government will number accept any demand unless it was companypelled by force to do so.
Those grounds show that the petitioner was detained on the basis of two speeches allegedly made by him one on July 8, 1983 at Nihang Chhowani, Baba Bakala, District Amritsar and the other on September 20, 1983 at Gurdwara Manji Sahib, Amertsar.
516 of 1983.
You further exhorted that the establishment of Khalsa Raaj was the only solution to the problems.
What was omitted from the extract furnished to the respondent was incorporated in ground No.
The particulars, of which an English translation was produced in the High Court at Ex.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
The respondent was arrested in pursuance of the order of detention on the night between October 3 and 4, 1983.
Parasaran, Attorney Genl.
of India, Bhagwant Singh, Advocate General Punjab , Gurmukh Singh, Addl Adv.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHANDRACHUD, C. J. This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment dated November, 29 1983 of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Criminal Writ Petition No.
General, G.S. Mann.
Advocate, Miss A. Subhashini and S.K. Bagga for the Appellants.
Deputy Adv.
516 of 1983.
Hardev Singh, G.S. Grewal, N.S Das Behl, R.S. Sodhi and S. Sandhawalia, for the Respondent.
General, R.D. Aggarwal, Govt.
He was first lodged in the Central Jail, Patiala and from there he was taken to Ambala, Baroda and Fathegarh U.P. He filed a Writ Petition No.463 of 1983 in the High Court to challenge his transfer and detention in a place far away from Ambala.
That Writ Petition was filed by the respondent.
Shri Jagdev Singh Talwandi, to challenge an order of detention passed by the District Magistrate, Ludhiana, on October 3, 1983 whereby the respondent was detained under section 3 3 read with section 3 2 of the National Security Act, 1980.
As desired by companynsel for the respondent, we remand the matter to the High Court for disposal of the remaining companytentions raised by the respondent in his Writ Petition.
One of the grounds on which the order of detention was challenged in the High Court was that the State Government had failed to discharge its obligation under Article 22 5 of the Constitution by denying to the respondent an effective opportunity to make a representation to the Advisory Board against the order of detention.
692 of 1983.
of Punjab, D.S. Brar, Asstt Adv.
He withdrew that petition on an assurance by the Government that he will be sent back to Ambala, which the Government did on October 28.
The grounds of detention were served on the respondent on October 6, 1983.
The grounds furnished to the petitioner read thus That you in a Shaheedi Conference which was held from 11 a.m. to 4.45 p.m. on 8 7 1983 at a place known as Nihang Chhowani at Baba Bakala, District Amritsar, delivered a provocative speech to a Sikh gathering companyprising about 2000/2200 Persons wherein you made a pointed reference to the incident dated 2 7 1983 of encounters between Nihangs and police at Baba Bakala and Taran Taran and stressed that in order to take revenge Sikhs would kill their Police four persons in lieu of the two Nihangs who had been killed in the said encounters.
