Morning News
10th August 1966
Detention Of Mujib, Tofazzal, Others Upheld
(Our High Court Correspondent)
The Special Bench consisting of Mr. Justice Siddiky, Mr. Justice M. R. Khan. Mr. Justice Sayem and Mr. Justice Abdullah delivered their judgement on the writ petition challenging the detention of Mr. Tofazzal Hossain, under Rule 32 of the Defence of Pakistan Rules and the habeas corpus application concerning the detention of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, K. Moshtaque Ahmed, Rezaul Karim, all Awami Leaguers, under Rule 32 of the Defence of Pakistan Rules.
Their Lordships in their majority judgement (Mr. Justice Abdullah dissenting) discharged the Rules in all these cases.
As stated in the petitions these detenus are stated to have been apprehended from their respective residences by police under orders passed by Mr. P. A. Nazir the Deputy Commissioner, Dacca, passed under Rule 32 of the Defence of Pakisntan Rules for activities prejudicial to public safety, security etc.
(‘VICTIMISATION’)
The order was challenged inter alia on the ground that it was malafied, it aimed at political victimisation for the six-point programme, that there was no material before the authority upon which satisfaction was obtained and that satisfaction of the Deputy Commissioner was not the satisfaction of the Central Government, that they never acted against the State, did nothing prejudicial and that the delegation was bad, that they were apprehended under D.P.R for definite purpose and reasons as no opportunity for representation was provided for though action could easily be taken under other preventive laws which provided for representation.
The Deputy Commissioner in his affidavit in opposition denied all the allegation and made a positive assertion that the order was made after full application of mind and after being fully satisfied on materials as to reasons for order, that there was no malafide, no political victimisation, nothing to do with the sixpoint programme as alleged. Their actions were found to be detrimental and prejudicial to public safety, order security etc. and detentions were found to be desirable under law. .
Their Lordships in majority) dealing with T. Hossain’s detention (which was delivered first) discussed all the legal points that was contended and held inter alia that the Deputy Commissioner had been validly authorised to exercise power and that he asserted in his affidavit that on being satisfied he passed the order. In case of preventive detention the law was subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. The materials upon which order was made was placed before the court and on examination it could not be said that there was nothing before the authority upon which satisfaction was obtained prior to detention order. It was not a case where power had been delegated without delegation of satisfaction, the power to act brought with it the satisfaction of the person passing the order. There would be no questioning the order it made with lawful authority and no going behind the order unless there was proof of malafide intention. The petitioner failed to make out a case for interfernce. There was no reason to interfere with the order. The Rule was discharged.
Their Lordships in dealing with the habeas corpus case again held in majority that the points of law were the same in these three habeas corpus cases as those of Mr. Taffazzal Hossain’s detention and the decision as to point of law in Mr. T. Hossain’s case fully applied in these cases. In all these cases the Deputy Commissioner denied all the allegation as to malafide intention and positively asserted that there were materials, reasons and satisfaction. materials as to these cases upon which order was made were placed before the Court and their Lordships in majority held that on examination it could not be said that there was nothing before the detaining authority as to satisfaction.
Their Lordships found no reason to interfere as the petitioners failed to make out a case for interference. The Rules were discharged with no order as to cost.
Mr. T. H. Khan along with Mr. A. W. Mallick, Mr. S. M. Abbas, Mr. Nurullah, Mr. K. H. Rashid and Mr. Abdur Rasheed, appeared for the State.
Mr. Abdus Salam Khan, Mr. Kamal Hossain, Mr. A Islam, Mr. A. Rab and others appeared for Mr. T. Hossain and other detenus.
APP adds: on a prayer on behalf of Mr. T. Hossain, it was certified by the Court that it was a fit case for appeal to the Supreme Court.
In the case of Mr. Nurul Islam Choudhury, the Court said that the affidavit filed by the Deputy Commissioner stated that he was exciting public against the policy of the present Government and held that the materials produced before the Court did not suggest what the D.C had stated in the affidavit.
সূত্র: সংবাদপত্রে বঙ্গবন্ধু তৃতীয় খণ্ড: ষাটের দশক॥ দ্বিতীয় পর্ব