Ram Jethmalani, Etc Vs. Union of
India, [1984] INSC 114 (19 June 1984)
VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J) VENKATARAMIAH, E.S.
(J)
CITATION: 1984 SCR (3) 926 1984 SCC (3) 696
1984 SCALE (1)846
ACT:
Constitution of India 1950, Article 32. National
Security Act, 1980, Section 3 and The Supreme Court Rules 1966, Order II rule 6
and order VII rule 4 (5).
Writ petitions assailing detention of detenu
under National Security Act.-Vacation Judge hearing petitions- Important
questions touching security of nation and personal liberty involved-Larger
Bench hearing matter-Necessity of.
HEADNOTE:
The petitioners in their writ petitions to this
Court assailed the detention of a member of the Sikh Community under the National
Security Act, 1980.
HELD: 1. these are not ordinary criminal
cases involving a few individuals coming from a small locality.
These are extraordinary cases involving
serious questions of great public importance touching the security of the
nation as well as personal liberty of a sizeable section of the community.
These cases have to be dealt with differently from the usual cases which come
up before this Court.[927 C- D]
2. In handling these cases the highest
judicial talent and statesmanship are needed and hence these cases cannot just
be rejected reserving liberty to the applicants to approach a Judicial
Magistrate, a Sessions Judge or even the High Court. Every step taken in these
cases should serve as a healing touch bringing solace to all concerned and
lessening by some degree the pain and suffering through which the country and
its peace-loving people have passed and are passing. These proceedings should
have the effect of assuaging the outraged feelings of many who till now may not
be aware of what has actually happened. [927 F-G]
3. The questions involved are too large and
complex for the shoulders of a Single Judge to bear. These and other cases of
like nature should be heard by at least seven learned Judges of this Court
whose unquestioned judicial authority, erudition and acumen would be of great
assistance in the restoration of peace in one of the States known for valour,
devotion, spirit of sacrifice and sense of duty towards the country of the
people residing in it. [927 H; 928 A]
4. Even if allegations of serious offences
against the State may be forthcoming against the arrested persons, the Court
may still consider whether it is not possible enlarge at least some of them,
who may be in a repentant mood, on bail to facilitate early restoration of
normalcy in the State. There may be many other things which may be done and
they are within the domain of the Judges, who may hear these cases. If this
Court in the end can succeed in establishing peace and harmony in the country,
it would be its finest hour. [928G-H; 929 A] (Cases referred to Larger Bench.)
927
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition
(Criminal) Nos. 920 and 934 of 1984.
(Under article 32 of the Constitution of
India) P.R. Mridul, R.D. Agarwala and R.N. Poddar for the Applicant/Respondent.
Miss Rani Jethmalani, G.S. Cheema and
Shailendra Bhardwaj for the opp. side/ petitioners.
The order of the Court was delivered by
VENKATARAMIAH, J. These cases are just two in number.
There may be many other cases of this nature
which have not yet reached this Court but may be filed shortly. These are not
ordinary criminal cases involving a few individuals coming from a small
locality. These are extraordinary cases involving serious questions of great
public importance touching the security of the nation as well as personal
liberty of a sizeable section of the community, many of whom may have been made
to believe by a dominant section of society, may be wrongly, that what they
were doing was right and for that reason may not have been free agents. Hence
these cases have to be dealt with differently from the usual cases which come
up before this Court.
First a word of caution. In the course of
these proceedings every word uttered on either side of the Bar should be an
weighed before it is used. There is no room for heat and passion; logic and
reason alone should rule the debates. There should be an all round sympathy in
dealing with the complex issues which may arise for determination.
In handling these cases the highest judicial
talent and statesmanship are needed and hence these cases cannot just be
rejected reserving liberty to the applicants to approach a Judicial Magistrate,
a Sessions Judge or even the High Court. Every step taken in these cases should
serve as a healing touch bringing solace to all concerned and lessening by some
degree the pain and suffering through which the country and its peace-loving
people have passed and are passing. These proceedings should have the effect of
assuaging the outraged feelings of many who till now may not be aware of what
has actually happened. Any amount of time spent by the highest Court of this land
on these cases would not go in vain. There is no duty more sacred than this.
1. However, feel that the questions involved
are too large and complex for the shoulders of a Single Judge to bear. It is my
humble view that these and other cases of like nature should be heard by at
least seven learned Judges of this Court whose unquestioned judicial authority,
erudition and acumen would be of great 928 assistance in the restoration of
peace in one of our great States known for the valour, the devotion, the spirit
of sacrifice and the sense of duty towards the country of the people residing
in it.
May I say that there can be no compromise on
the following matters, namely, unity and integrity of India, the secular and
democratic form of the Indian Government and the supremacy of the Indian
Constitution? They must be upheld in any event. There cannot be any doubt about
the right of the established Government to run the administration of the
country. We should remember, that India is no doubt a Union of States, but the
boundary, of the States are not unalterable. There is only one citizenship in
India and that all of us-Indian citizens-belong to the whole of India and the
whole of India belongs to all of us. Man-made boundaries cannot divide us.
Language, religion, caste and other factors cannot be allowed to drive a wedge
between one section and another. It is good to remember here what Abraham
Lincoln said though in another context in 1858, 'A house divided against itself
cannot stand'. The issue now before the Court involves more than the future of
India.
Again to quote Lincoln from what he said in
the American context:
"It presents to the whole family of man,
the question whether a constitutional republic or a democracy-a government of
the people, by the same people-can or cannot maintain its territorial
integrity, against its own domestic foes".
The above words appear to be relevant in the
present Indian context too.
The unfolding of facts in these cases may
make those who may have erred to realise where they have erred and how they
have erred. It may help the Court to suggest solutions for rectifying the
undesirable effects of such errors. Even if allegations of serious offences
against the State may be forthcoming against the arrested persons, the Court may
still consider whether it is not possible to enlarge at least some of them, who
may be in a repentant mood, on bail to facilitate early restoration of normalcy
in the State.
The Court may at some stage have occasion to
consider whether it 929 should recommend to Parliament to pass an Act of
Indemnity which may be an act of great sagacity, thus drawing the curtain on
this unhappy page of the history of the Indian Republic. These may be many
other things which may be done and they are within the domain of my learned
Brothers who may hear these cases. If this Court in the end can succeed in
establishing peace and harmony in the country, it would be its finest hour.
I, therefore, refer these cases to a larger
Bench with the fond hope that our country would have no occasion in the future
to face a similar situation.
These papers may be placed before the Hon'ble
the Chief Justice of India for appropriate directions.
N.V.K. Cases referred to larger bench.
Back
