# SUPREME COURT REPOR.TS [1960 (2)) JAGAN NATH SATHU v. THE UNION OF INDIA

- **Citation:** [1960] 2 S.C.R. 784
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1959-05-07
- **Case number:** Writ Petition No. 170 of 1959
- **Bench:** B. P. Sinha, Jafe.R Imam, A. K. l'ARKAH, K. N. \Vanchoo, J. c. SHAH
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/supreme-court-repor-ts-1960-2-jagan-nath-sathu-v-the-union-of-india-1781
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

Preventive detention--Status of Pakistan in relation to India--
If a foreign pmver-Grounds of detention-Principles of natural
justice-Preventive Detention Act. I950 (4 of I9SO),-Constit1dion
of India, Item 9, List I, Seventh Schedule.
The petitioner was detained by an order of the Central
Government under s. 3, ofj the Preventive Detention Act, r950.
The Advisory Board which considered the petitioner's case in
accordance with the provisions of the Act did not recommend that
the order of detention should be withdrawn.
The allegations
against the petitioner were that he \Vas carrying on propaganda
.of hatred and contempt against the Government of India and the
State of Jammu :lJ)d Kashmir by sending for publication in a
widely published foreign Newspaper, false, one-sided and misleading infor1nation about the adn1inistration of the State and the
condition of India in general and the said State in particular.
1'he petitioner's contentions, inter a1ia, ¥/ere that being a member
of the Commonwealth,
Pakistan, where the fic,vspaper vvas
published, was not a Foreign State and could not therefore be
regarded as a Foreign power, that the principles of natural
justice where violated by the Advisory Board in considering the
respondent's case in his absence and that n1ateria1s placed before
the Advisory Board were not supplied to him.
Held, that on a correct :interpretation of the expression
"foreign affairs" appearing in Item 9, List I, Seventh Schedule
of the Constitution and the words "the relations of India with
foreign powers" in s. 3 of the Act, Pakistan must be regarded as
a foreign power although that country might be a member of the
-
'
Commonwealth like India.
Under Art. 367 (3) a country might
-
not be regarded as a Foreign State for the purposes of the Constitution but that country might be a foreign power for other
purposes.
The Common\vcalth is an Associatjon of Nations each
having a sovereign status independent of the other in its internal
and foreign affairs.
The provisions of s. ro of the Act did not offend against the
principles of natural justice and the procedure adopted by the
Advisory Board in the present case was not in Contravention
there?!·
0.RIGINAL JumsmcTION: Writ Petition No. 170
of 1959.
Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of
India for enforcement of Fundamental rights.
T
. ._
-
-
,,
f
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
785
R. V. S. Mani. for the patitioner.
r960
C. K. Dephtary, Solicitor-General of India, B. R. L. Jagan Nath sathu
Iyengar ii.nd R. H. Dhebar, for the respondent.
v.
1960, January 20. The Judgment of the Court The Union of India
was delivered by
IMAM J.-This petition was heard on January 4,
Imam J .
1960, and we intimated that it was being dismissed
and reasons for the same will follow later. We
proceed to give our reasons now.
The petitioner was detained by an order dated
May 4, l!J59, of the Central Government under the
provisions of s. 3 of the Preventive Detention Act,
1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The grounds
of detention dateq May 7, 1959, were served on the
petitioner. His case was considered by the Advisory
Board constituted by the Central Government under
s. 8 of the Act. On the report of the Advisory Board
the Central Government by its order dated June 23,
1959, directed that the petitioner be detained until
May, 4 1960. It is against this order of detention
that the present petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution has been filed by the petitioner.
_
The grounds of detention contained 5 grounds
upon which the Central Government was satisfied that
it was necessary · to detain the petitioner as he was
likely to act further in a manner prejudicial to the
security of India and the relations of India with
foreign powers. It was further stated in the grounds
of detention that the Central Government considered
it against the public interest to disclose to the petitioner
any facts or particulars as to dates, persons, places,
nature of activities and the assistance given by

## Text

i9fio
January 20.
784
SUPREME COURT REPOR.TS [1960 (2))
JAGAN NATH SATHU
v.
THE UNION OF INDIA
(B. P. SINHA, c. J., JAFE.R IMAM, A. K. l'ARKAH,
K. N. \VANCHOO AND J. c. SHAH, JJ.)
Preventive detention--Status of Pakistan in relation to India--
If a foreign pmver-Grounds of detention-Principles of natural
justice-Preventive Detention Act. I950 (4 of I9SO),-Constit1dion
of India, Item 9, List I, Seventh Schedule.
The petitioner was detained by an order of the Central
Government under s. 3, ofj the Preventive Detention Act, r950.
The Advisory Board which considered the petitioner's case in
accordance with the provisions of the Act did not recommend that
the order of detention should be withdrawn.
The allegations
against the petitioner were that he \Vas carrying on propaganda
.of hatred and contempt against the Government of India and the
State of Jammu :lJ)d Kashmir by sending for publication in a
widely published foreign Newspaper, false, one-sided and misleading infor1nation about the adn1inistration of the State and the
condition of India in general and the said State in particular.
1'he petitioner's contentions, inter a1ia, ¥/ere that being a member
of the Commonwealth,
Pakistan, where the fic,vspaper vvas
published, was not a Foreign State and could not therefore be
regarded as a Foreign power, that the principles of natural
justice where violated by the Advisory Board in considering the
respondent's case in his absence and that n1ateria1s placed before
the Advisory Board were not supplied to him.
Held, that on a correct :interpretation of the expression
"foreign affairs" appearing in Item 9, List I, Seventh Schedule
of the Constitution and the words "the relations of India with
foreign powers" in s. 3 of the Act, Pakistan must be regarded as
a foreign power although that country might be a member of the
-
'
Commonwealth like India.
Under Art. 367 (3) a country might
-
not be regarded as a Foreign State for the purposes of the Constitution but that country might be a foreign power for other
purposes.
The Common\vcalth is an Associatjon of Nations each
having a sovereign status independent of the other in its internal
and foreign affairs.
The provisions of s. ro of the Act did not offend against the
principles of natural justice and the procedure adopted by the
Advisory Board in the present case was not in Contravention
there?!·
0.RIGINAL JumsmcTION: Writ Petition No. 170
of 1959.
Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of
India for enforcement of Fundamental rights.
T
. ._
-
-
,,
f
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
785
R. V. S. Mani. for the patitioner.
r960
C. K. Dephtary, Solicitor-General of India, B. R. L. Jagan Nath sathu
Iyengar ii.nd R. H. Dhebar, for the respondent.
v.
1960, January 20. The Judgment of the Court The Union of India
was delivered by
IMAM J.-This petition was heard on January 4,
Imam J .
1960, and we intimated that it was being dismissed
and reasons for the same will follow later. We
proceed to give our reasons now.
The petitioner was detained by an order dated
May 4, l!J59, of the Central Government under the
provisions of s. 3 of the Preventive Detention Act,
1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The grounds
of detention dateq May 7, 1959, were served on the
petitioner. His case was considered by the Advisory
Board constituted by the Central Government under
s. 8 of the Act. On the report of the Advisory Board
the Central Government by its order dated June 23,
1959, directed that the petitioner be detained until
May, 4 1960. It is against this order of detention
that the present petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution has been filed by the petitioner.
_
The grounds of detention contained 5 grounds
upon which the Central Government was satisfied that
it was necessary · to detain the petitioner as he was
likely to act further in a manner prejudicial to the
security of India and the relations of India with
foreign powers. It was further stated in the grounds
of detention that the Central Government considered
it against the public interest to disclose to the petitioner
any facts or particulars as to dates, persons, places,
nature of activities and the assistance given by him
other than those which had been· mentioned in .the
grounds of detention. The grounds of detention
further mentioned that some of the specimen des.
patches sent by the petitioner and some of the reports
appearing in a newspaper published in Pakistan were
annexed thereto.
]'rom the grounds of detention it would appear
that the allegation against the petitioner was that he
had been engaged in carrying on propaganda against
the Government of India and the Government of the
786
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1!160 (2)]
I96o
State of Jammu and Kashmir established by law and
Jagan ;;;;;h Sathu :igainst the administration of that State Government
v.
m a manner calculated to bring into hatred and
The Union of India contempt the Government of the State and the
Government of India; that in furtherance of his
Imam J.
propaganda the petitioner had been inter alia sending
for publication in a foreign newspaper despatches of
news and views relating to the State of Jammu and
Kashmir containing false, incomplete, one-sided and
misleading information about the -i1dministration of
the State by the Government of that State, about the
policy of the Government of India in relation to that
8tate and about the conditiohs in India in general
and in the State of Jammu and Kashmir in particular;
that the said despatches were published prominently
by the said newspaper, having a large circulation in
Pakistan and other foreign countries, in a manner
prejudicial to India and her cause in relation to the
8tate of Jammu and Kashmir and also prejudicial to
the relations of India with foreign powers ; that the
petitioner was in regular touch and closely associated
with several persons who are hostile to the cause of
India in relation to the State of Jammu and Kashmir
and were engaged in activities prejudicial to the security of India and that the cumulative effect of the
petitioner's aforesaid activities was prejudicial to the
relations of India with foreign powers in general and
particularly in regard to the cause of India in respect
of the State of Jammu and Kashmir and the maintenance of public order therein.
We have examined the various extracts from the
despatches sent by the petitioner annexed to the
grounds of detention served upon him. They disclose
sufficient particulars to enable the petitioner to make
a representation to the Advisory Board. Having
regard to what appears in these extracts from the
despatches sent to the newspaper concerned, they
disclose sufficient grounds for the action taken by the
Central Government in detaining the petitioner.
On behalf of the petitioner it was urged that the
order of detention was confined only to two matters
(1) that it was made with a view to preventing the
,.
-
..
,.
I
-
-
--
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
787
petitioner from acting in a manner prejudicial to the
z960
relations of India with foreign powers and (2) to the 1
N k 5 th
security of India. As to the first matter, it was agan ::
a u
argued that Pakistan not being a Foreign State, there The Union of India
could be no question of any act of the petitioner
being prejudicial to the relations· of India with foreign
Imam J.
powers. It was pointed out that under Art. 367(3) of
the Constitution, for the purposes of the Constitution,
Foreign State meant any State other than India.
The proviso, however, enabled the President, subject
to the provisions of any law mad~ by Parliament, by
order to declare any State not to be Foreign State
for such purposes . as may be specified in the order.
Reference was made to the Constitution (Declaration
as to Foreign State) Order, 1950 (hereinafter referred
to as the Order) made by the Governor General of
India under Art. 392(3) of the Constitution read with
Art. 367(3). The Order directed that it shall come
into force at once, that is to say, bn January 23, 1950.
Clause (2) of the Order states : "Subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament, every country
within the Commonwealth is hereby declared not to
be a Foreign State for the purposes of the Constitution". On behalf of the petitioner it was urged that
by the Order, Pakistan being a member of the
Commonwealth, was declared not to be a Foreign
State. Although the Order was subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament no law had yet
been enacted by Parliament contrary to the declaration made by the Order. Pakistan not being a Foreign
State could not therefore be regarded as a foreign
power and none of the acts of the petitioner referred
to in the grounds of detention could therefore be
regarded as acts prejudicial to the relations of India
with foreign powers. The ground in this respect being
an invalid ground the order of detention must be set
aside because even if one ground was an invalid
ground the entire order of detention must be set aside
though other grounds appeared to be valid grounds,
having regard to certain decisions of this Court.
It was also urged on behalf of the petitioner that
none of the extracts of the despatches and the grounds
788
SUPHEME COURT REPOllTS [1960(2))
, 96o
of detention disclose any word or phrase suggesting
incitement to violence or subversion of the Government
Jagan Nath Sathu of the State of Jammu and Kashmir or of the GovernThe Uni;~ of India ment of India. Accor~i'.1gly, there could be no question
_
of any act of the petit10ner being prejudicial to the
Imam J.
security of India.
Some other submissions were also urged on behalf
of the petitioner with respect to the grounds of detention which will be dealt with in due course.
It was also urged that in violation of the principles
of natural justice the respondent's case was heard
by the Advisory Board prior to the case of the
petitioner and in his absence and that copies of the
further materials, which were placed before the
Advisory Board by the respondent, were not supplied
to the petitioner.
As already stated the contention on behalf of the
petitioner has been that Pakistan is not a Foreign
t:ltate and therefore cannot be regarded as a foreign
power. It is true, that in view of the Order, for the
purposes of the Constitution of India, Pakistan is not
a Foreign State. There is, however, a distinction
between a country not being regarded as a Foreign
State for the purposes of the Constitution and that
country being a foreign power for other purposes.
The Commonwealth is an Association of Nations each
of which has a sovereign status independent of each
other in its internal and foreign affairs. They have a
sovereign status as complete as that of any nation
which is not a
member of the Commonwealth.
Each member of the Commonwealth can have diplomatic relations with each other and with nations
outside the Commonwealth. Indeed, in the matter of
sovereign status they are as independent as any nation
outside the Commonwealth. It follows, therefore,
that in their relations between each other and nations
outside the Commonwealth they must be regarded as
foreign powers and their affairs as between them are
foreign affairs. In our opinion, that which is not
concerned with the internal affairs of a member of the
Commonwealth, is its external affair, that is to say, a
foreign affair.
-
-
-
-
S.C.R,
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
789
Under item 9 of List I of the Seventh Schedule of
r96o
the Constitution, Parliamen~ is empo~ered to enact Jagan N;,;. Sathu
laws with respect to preventive detent10n for reasons
v.
connected with defence, foreign affairs or the security The Union of India
of India and persons subjected to such detention.
Under s. 3 of the Act the Central Government or the
Imam J.
State Government may, if satisfied with respect to any
person, with a view to preventing him from acting in
any manner prejudicial to the defence of India, the
relations of India with foreign powers or the security
of India, make an order directing that such person be
detained, if it thinks it necessary so to do. The
expression " Foreign Affairs " includes the relations of
India with foreign powers. The question for decision
is whether Pakistan is a foreign power. On a correct
interpretation of the meaning of the words "the
relations of India with foreign powers" we have no
doubt that Pakistan must be regarded as a foreign
power, although that country may be a part of the
Commonwealth as India is. It has sovereignty in
matters of internal administration and external
relations quite independent and disconnected with the
sovereignty of India or any other member of the
Commonwealth in these respects. Pakistan has its own
diplomatic relations with various countries including
India. Apart from its membership of the Commonwealth, the independent sovereign status of Pakistan
. is the same as the sovereign status of any country
outside the Commonwealth. It was, howevn, suggested
that the Order made by the Govern9r General took
·Pakistan outside the category of a foreign power. In
our opinion, this is a fallacious argument because Art.
367(3) itself states that for the purposes of the Indian
Constitution Foreign State means any State other than
India but the President, and before the commencement of the Constitution the Governor General of
India under Art. 392(3), may by ordel' declare any
State not to be a Foreign State for such purposes as
may be specified in the Order. In the Order the
Governor General declared that every country within
the Commonwealth was not a Foreign State for the
purposes of the Constitution. In the Constitution of
India there are various Articles in which the expression
790
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960(2)]
'96°
Foreign State appears, e.g., Art. 18(2), (3), (4), Art.
Jagan ;a-;h Sathu 19(2), Art. 102(l)(d) and Art. 191(1)(d). It is clear,
v.
therefore, that under the Order, for the purposes of
The Union of India these Articles or any other Article where the expression
"Foreign State" appears, that expression would not
Imam J.
cover a country within the Commonwealth unless
Parliament enacted otherwise. The Order cannot be
brought into aid for the purposes of construing the
expression "foreign affairs" appearing in item 9 of List
I of the Seventh Schedule and the expression "foreign
powers" in s. 3 of the Act. These expressions must be
construed in the ordinary way giving the words their
ordinary meaning. We have no doubt that Pakistan
is a foreign power. Under the provisions of the Act
the Central Government and the State Governments
could detain a person who was acting in a manner
prejudicial to the relations of India with foreign powers
which would include Pakistan. It is to be further
remembered that neither in the order of detention nor
in the grounds of detention there is any mention of
Pakistan specifically. On the contrary, in the grounds
of detention, it is clearly stated that the cumulative
effect of the petitioner's activities was prejudicial to
the relations of India with foreign powers in general
(vide grounds 3 and 4).
The grounds of detention
refer to the publication in a foreign newspaper of
despatches of news and views relating to the State of
J ammu and Kashmir containing false, incomplete, onesided and misleading information and about the policy
of the Governm1mt of India in relation to that State.
The extracts of the despatches, sent by the petitioner
to the foreign newspaper, annexed to the grounds of
detention show that they are not only prejudicial to
the Government of India vis-a-vis Pakistan but they
are prejudicial to the relations of India with foreign
powers in general, the subject of the affairs of the
State of Jammu and Kashmir not being a matter of
interest solely to Pakistan but also of interest to other
foreign powers.
Coming now to objections made as to the grounds
of detention: regarding ground No. 1, it was urged
that this ground was outside the scope of the order of
-
..
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
791
detention. This ground mentions that the petitioner
z960
is engaged in carrying on propaganda against the
-
Government of India and the Government 0f the State fagan Nath Sathu
of Jammu and Kashmir in such a manner as to bringTheUnio:of Indicl
these two Governments into hatred and contempt. In
--
our opinion, it cannot be said that this ground is
Imam J.
beyond the scope of the order of detent.ion because the
bringing of the Government of India and the Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir into hatred
and contempt does involve the security of India.
Regarding ground No. 2 it was urged that it does
not disclose a single suggestion about the subversive
activities of the petitioner, nor does it disclose what
portions of the despatches were false, incomplete,
misleading or one-sided. It was further pointed out
that this ground speaks of the conditions in India in
general and the policy of the Government of India in
relation to the State of Jammu and Kashmir. What
the policy of the Government of India is concerning
that State is not stated. All these allegations were so
vague tha~ they gave no real opportunity to the
petitioner to make a representation. Similarly, concerning grounds 3 and 4 it was urged thia.t the grounds
did not disclose what was the cause of India in relation
to the State of Jammu and Kashmir. Here again,
sufficient particulars were not given to enable the
petitioner to make an effective representation to the
Advisory Board. In our opinion, none of these contentions has any substance because with the grounds
of detention were annexed extracts from the despatches
sent by the petitioner to the newspaper " Dawn "
published in Pakistan. These extracts gave sufficient
particulars to enable the petitioner to make a representation with respect to all matters stated in the grounds
of detention.
Coming now to the submission that the respondent's
case was heard before the petitioner's case and in his
absence and that copies of further materials placed
before the Advisory Board by the respondent were not
supplied to the petitioner, it is necessary to refer to the
procedure to be adopted by the Advisory Board under
IOI
792
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960 {2)]
'960
the provisions of the Act. Under s. 9, in every case
fa n-;;;;h sathu where a detention order has been made the appropriate
ga
v.
Government must within 30 days from the date of
The Union of India detention place before the Advisory Board the grounds,
on which the order has been made, and the representaJmam J.
tion, if any, made by the detenus and, in a case where
an order has been made by an officer, also the report
by such officer under sub-s. (3) of s. 3. Section 10 sets
-
out the procedure which the Advisory Board must
-
follow when reference has been made to it under s. 9.
Section 10(1) states :
"The Advisory Board shall, after considering the
materials placed before it and, after calling for such
further information as it may deem necessary from
the appropriate Government or from any person
called for the purpose through the appropriate
Government or from the person concerned, and if in
any particular case it considers it essential so to do
or if the person concerned desires to be heard, after
hearing him in person, submit its report to the
appropriate Government within ten weeks from the
date of detention. "
It is clear from these provisions that the Advisory
Board after considering the materials placed before it
under s. 9 can call for further information from the
appropriate Government, and that thereafter if in any
particular case it considers it esse.ntial so to do or if
the detenue desires to be heard, after hearing him,
submit its report to the appropriate Government. In
such a situation the Advisory Board must of necessity
-
obtain further information from the appropriate
Government before it hears the detenue. In our
opinion, there is nothing in s. 10 which offends against
the principles of natural justice. ' Furthermore, the
petition does not assert as a matter of fact that the
respondent's case was heard in the absence of the
petitioner. Indeed, the respondent's affidavit does not
admit that any such thing happened.
As for the copies of the further materials placed
by the respondent before the Advisory Board not
being supplied to the petitioner, it has to be observed
that in paragraph 3 of the grounds of detention it was
•
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
793
clearly stated that the Central Government considered
z960
it against public interest to disclose to the petitioner 1
h 5 ,
.
d
l
agan Nat
afou
any facts or particulars as to
ates, persons, p aces,
v.
nature of activities and the assistance given by him The Union of India
other than those which had already been mentioned
in the grounds of detention. Under Art. 22(6) of the
Imam J.
Constitution it is clearly stated that nothing in cl. (5)
of that Article shall require the authority making
an order of detention to disclose facts which such
authority considers to be against public interest to be
disclosed. In the present case the authority concerned
had declined to disclose in the public interest any facts
or particulars as to dates, persons, places, nature of
activities and the assistance given by the petitioner
other than those which had already been mentioned in
the grounds of detention. In such circumstances, it
would have been entirely inappropriate for the
respondent to supply copies of the further materials
placed before the Advisory Board although the
Advisory Board may have required further information in order to satisfy itself.
The petition is accordingly dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
M/s. ALOPI PARSHAD & SONS, LTD.
v.
THE UNION OF INDIA
(S. K. DAS, K. N. W ANCHOO AND J. C. SHAH, JJ.)
Arbitration-Award, setting aside of-Error on the face of the
record-Reference of specific questions-Contract-Terms of payment
specified-Change of circumstances-Power of arbitrator to vary
terms-Quantum M eruit payment, when justified.
The appellants were appointed under an agreement in writing
· by the Governor-General as agents for purchasing and supplying
ghee required for the Army personnel with effect from October l,
1937. After the outbreak of the World War II there was an
enormous increase in the demand of ghee by the Government
and the agreement was revised by mutual consent on June 20,
1942, and the original rates of payment were scaled down.
On
December 6, 1943, the appellants made a representation to the
Government for enhancing, the rates as conditions had become
I960
January 20.