- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Decided
- 15 October 1974
- Bench
- Y. V. Chandrachud, R. S. Sarkaria
- Result
- Petition dismissed.
Headnote
Constitution of India, Art. 22(5)- Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971-Period of detention-Habeas Corpus-Grounds of detention refer to a solitary Incl· dent-Particulars furnished stating "you have been acting" In a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order-If justifies inference that the detention order is based . on undisclosed material.
The petitioner was detained under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act 1971. The ground of detention referred to a solitary incident. The particulars fur· nished to the petitioner however stated that he was detained on the ground: "yolll have been acting", in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. In a petition for habeas corpus it was contended that since the language used showed a culpable conduct over a long period of time, the detaining authority had before it material showing that the petitioner was indulging .in a criminal course of conduct for a long period and as such material was not disclosed to the petitioner, he had no opportunity to meet it resulting thereby in the contravention of Art. 22(5) of the Constitution. It was also contended that since State Government approved a deten· tion order bearing a date different from the one shown in the order served on the petitioner, State Government had before it some other order of detention while approving the petitioner's detention.
Confinning the ·order of detention, · HELD : In matters Involving the liberty of the $Ubject, the detaining authorities ought to exercise the greatest care in the discharge of their functions. But that does not justify an unrealistic dissection of detention orders. The counter affidavit filed by the State shows that no other material was taken into account. The use of ex· pression "you have been acting", though . unfortunate does not support the submission that the detention order was founded on undisclosed material. [426C-E]
(2) · The order of approval contains a typographical error which is clear from the fact that the number of detention order is correctly given and in the order con-firming !he detention order, after consultation with the Advisory Board the correct date of the detention order is mentioned. [426F-HJ ·
Headnote as published in the Digital Supreme Court Reports by the Supreme Court of India. Paragraph references point to the judgment below.
Judgment
CHANDRACHUD, J.-The petitioner was detained by an order daied August 23, 1973 passed by the J?istrict Magistrate, Hc·wrah, u~der the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971. The prder recites that the petitioner was detained v.ith a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
The particulars"ofthe ground of detention refer to a solitary incident dated March 18, 1973. It is aJleged that at about 2 p.m. on that date, the.. petitioner and his associates being armed with ~"'.ords, Ballams and Lathis attacked a group of Bengalees .at RaJnar~y~n. Roy Choudhury Ghat Road, Shibpur, Howrah cau.<mg sever~ 1DJUT1es to them. It is further stated that this conduct Jed to a reign of terror
426 SUPREME COURT REPQRTS [1975] 2 s.c.R.
in the locality as a result of which the sh6ps .and the doors. of th~ road side houses ,vere closed, people of the locality fled away mpamc and the people were generally afraid of coming out of their houses for fear of being assaulted.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the pe1itioner has raiied two points for our consideration in this petition for the writ of habeas corpus. The part;culars furnished to the petitioner say that the petitioner was detained on the ground: "you have been acting" in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The argument is that the order is founded on a single incident and there-fore, the use of language showing that the culpable conduct on the part of the petitioner extended over an appreciably long period of time was wholly inappropriate. Inferentially; it is urged, the detaining authority had material before it showing that the petitioner was indulging in a criminal course of conduct for a long pericd of time and as such material was not disclosed to the petitioner, he .had no opportunity to 1 meet it, leading thereby tc the contr:iventicn of Article 22(5) of the Constitution. w~: are not impressed by this submission. It is true that in matters involving the liberty of the subject, the detaining authorities ought to exercise the greatest care in the discharge of their functions. llut that does not justify an unrealistic dissection of deten-tion orders. The counter-affidavit fi,led on behalfcf the State Gc:.vt. shows that no other material was taken into account by the drtaining authority wh'ile passing the ()rder of detention. Therefore, the use of the expression, "you have been acting" though untortunate does not support the submission that the order of detention is founded on undisclosed material. The petitioner was exprersly appriEed that he had been acting in a manner prejudic:al to the main1enance of public order "as evidenced by the particulars;" furnished to him. The pa.rti-culars refer only to a single incident.
The seco1~d ground of attack on the detention order is that when the State Government approved the detention on August 30, 1973 it passed an order approving a detention order dated "25-8-73". As the impugned order of detention is dated August 23, 1973 it is urged that while approving the detention of the petitioner, the Sta1e Govern-ment had before it some other order of detention. There is no substance in this contention. The order of approval contains but a tyoographical error. This is ckar from the order pas~ed by the State ( "t. on November 8, 1973 c:onfirming the order of detention after obtaining the opinion of the Advisory Board. The order of confir-mation refers to the or~e~ of detention dated August 23, 1973. It must also be stated that as 111 the order of confirmation so in the order of approval, an express roferenc:e is made to the detention order bearing No. 1818•C. The order of detention passed against the petitioner on August 23, 1973 bears that very number which shows lhat the reference to an order dat1:d "25-8-73" in the order of approval is a typographical mistake. · ·
In the result, we confirm the order of detention and discharge the rule in this petition. ·
Case details
Arising from
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 118 of 1974.
Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution.
R. L. Kohli, for the: petitioner . for . Dilip Sinhlz and G. S. Chatterjee, the respondent.
Source: Supreme Court of India, Digital Supreme Court Reports, via the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open dataset (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.