(1) This petition under Article 226 of .the Constitution challenges the order of detention made by District Magistrate, Delhi on 2-1-1967 in exercise of the powers conferred on him by sub-clause (ii) of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 3 read with sub-section (2) of section 3 of the preventive Detention Act (IV of 1950) as amended from time to time. The petitioner's activities have been considered by the detaining authority as being highly prejudicial to the maintenance of law and order in the Union Territory of Delhi. As many as 36 grounds are mentioned in the grounds of detention furnished to the detenu who has argued his own case before me. The petitioner is an advocate of this Court and is a prominent social and religious worker. He has been associated with the religious and social activities of the Arya Samaj from his early age and is a Secretary of the Arya Samaj Educational Trust and of a girls higher secondary school. He professes to be a conscientious believer in the Cow Prtoection Movement, which, according to him was a part of the nation-wide movement of the Arya Samaj. He states that it was as a member of the Arya Samaj that he joined the Sarvdaliya Go-Raksha Maha Abhiyan Samiti, an organisation engaged in the current Cow Prtoection Movement, and was appointed as Secretary of the said Association. According to him this Association functions under the auspices of Bharat Go Sawak Samaj which is a registered body and is patronised by many of the prominent Congress leaders like Shri U.N. Dhebar and Seth Gobind Das. He denies the correctness of the various allegations made in the grounds of detenion furnished to him and contends that he and his associates are wedded to democratic process and have no belief in violence. Dharna, that is squatting, before Parliament House or before any lawful authority is, according to him, intended only to invite attention of the authorities to think and consider the force of their demand. As regards fasts, his contention is that these have been undertaken by the individual saints on account of their own spiritual intiative with a view to convert the Government through soul force. Citing the example of Mahatama Gandhi, the father of the nation, in launching upon similar fasts, he contends that undertaking of fasts is a part and parcel of the democratic process available to the citizen within the frame work of the Constitution of India and that the detaining authority has no right or power to challenge the legality or toherwise of individual fasts being taken by individuals in the parsuit of their demands.
(2) He further contends that the order of detention infringes his fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. Finally, he contends that the grounds of detention are vague and indefinite and, thereforee, the order is liable to be quashed.
(3) For the. purpose of deciding this petition, it is nto necessary for me to deal with all the arguments urged by the petitioner. It is well settled that. it is nto for this Court to go into the correctness or sufficiency of the grounds on which the detention of the petitioner has been ordered by the detaining authority. All that I have to see is whether the grounds are relevant to the purpose for which the detention of the petitioner has been ordered and whether they are definite enough to afford the petitioner an opportunity for making effective representation against the impugned order. I am nto convinced in this case that the grounds of detention are nto relevant or germane to the question of maintenance of public order. They certainly have a great deal to do with the maintenance of public order.
(4) The petitioner is, however, entitled to his release on one of the grounds of attack made by him. He has particularly invited my attention to ground (xxxv) which runs as under :-
'YOUtook prominent part in organising 'Hartal' on 31-12-1966,' This ground, in my opinion, is utterly vague and indefinite and since the law is that even if one of the several grounds is vague and indefinite the order of detention is liable to be quashed.
(5) I, thereforee, quash the order of detention and order that the petitioner, who is present in Court, be released forthwith.