Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
11th September, 1963
P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. SUBBA RAO, K.N. WANCHOO, N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR AND J.R. MUDHOLKAR, JJ.
Rameshwar Shaw, Petitioner
Versus
District Magistrate, Burdwan and another, Respondents
Petn. N. 145 of 1963.
Advocates appeared
M/s. R. K. Garg, S. C. Aggarwal, D. P. Singh and M. K. Ramamurthi, Advocates of M/s. Ramamurthi and Co. (Petitioner also in person), for Petitioners; Mr. B. Sen, Senior Advocate, (Mr. P. K. Bose, Advocate with him), for Respondents.
PREVENTIVE DETENTION - Detention of person already in jail custody - Validity - S. 3(1)(a) of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Rameshwar Shaw, was arrested on January 25, 1963, and remained in custody. On February 15, 1963, while in jail custody, he was served with an order of detention under S. 3(1)(a) of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 (the Act). The grounds for detention alleged that the petitioner had engaged in anti-social activities, threatened and assaulted people, and disturbed public order in several areas. The petitioner challenged the validity of his detention on various grounds, including that the order was not justified under S. 3(1)(a) of the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the detention of the petitioner was not justified under S. 3(1)(a) of the Act. The Court reasoned that the satisfaction of the detaining authority under S. 3(1)(a) is subjective and not justiciable, but that the validity of a detention order can be challenged on the ground of mala fides. The Court found that the petitioner's detention was not based on any rational connection between his past conduct and the conclusion that his detention was necessary to prevent him from acting in a prejudicial manner. The Court also held that it was not open to the detaining authority to pass an order of detention against a person who was already in jail custody, as the basis for such an order is that the person would act in a prejudicial manner if not detained, which is not possible for a person in jail custody.
Issues: 1. Whether the detention of the petitioner was justified under S. 3(1)(a) of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950. 2. Whether the detaining authority could pass an order of detention against a person who was already in jail custody.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The satisfaction of the detaining authority under S. 3(1)(a) of the Act is subjective and not justiciable, but the validity of a detention order can be challenged on the ground of mala fides. 2. The detention of a person under S. 3(1)(a) of the Act must be based on a rational connection between the person's past conduct and the conclusion that their detention is necessary to prevent them from acting in a prejudicial manner. 3. It is not open to the detaining authority to pass an order of detention against a person who is already in jail custody, as the basis for such an order is that the person would act in a prejudicial manner if not detained, which is not possible for a person in jail custody.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the petition and set aside the order of detention passed against the petitioner. The Court directed that the petitioner be released forthwith.
Judgment
GAJENDRAGADKAR, J.: The short question which this petition for Habeas Corpus raises for our decision is whether the order of detention passed against, and served on, the petitioner Rameshwar Shaw while he was in jail custody is justified by S. 3 (1) of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 (No. 4 of 1950) (hereinafter called the Act ). The answer to this question would naturally depend upon a fair and reasonable construction of the relevant clause of the said section.
2. The District Magistrate, Burdwan, passed an Order on the February 9, 1963, whereby he directed that the petitioner should be detained. The Order recites that the District Magistrate was satisfied that it was necessary to detain the petitioner with a view to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. This order was served on the petitioner on February 15, 1963, in Burdwan Jail where he had been kept as a result of a remand order passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction which had taken cognizance of a criminal complaint against him. As required by S. 7 (1) of the Act, the grounds on which the petitioner s detention had been ordered by the detaining authority were communicated to him on the same day. In due course, the State Government approved of the said Order on February 16, 1963. The case of the detenu was then placed before the Advisory Board which recommended the continuance of the petitioner s detention. Thereafter, the State Government by its Order passed on April 23, 1963 confirmed the detention of the petitioner under S. 11 of the Act. This Order of the State Government was ultimately served on the petitioner in the Burdwan Jail on April 29, 1963.
3. The grounds for the petitioner s detention which have been served on him indicate that material had been placed before the detaining authority which showed that the petitioner was indulging in anti-social activities and that in pursuance of the said activities, he had threatened many people with assault and in fact had assaulted them. These grounds further show that the petitioner had disturbed public order in areas within Faridpur. Andal, Raniganj and Asansol police stations within the district of Burdwan and five instances were cited in support of this ground. The notice conveying the said grounds to the petitioner further alleged that as a result of the criminal activities of the petitioner set out in the notice, confusion had been created in the lives of the peaceful citizens of the areas, and so, the detaining authority was satisfied that it was necessary to detain the petitioner to prevent him from indulging in prejudicial activities. The notice further informed the petitioner that if he wanted to make a representation against the order of detention passed by the detaining authority, he should take steps to forward his representation as indicated in the notice. He was also told that in case his representation was received, his case would be forwarded to the Advisory Board, and if he desired to address the Advisory Board personally, he might make a request in that behalf and the same would be considered.
4. Mr. Garg for the petitioner has challenged the validity of the petitioner s detention on several grounds. He contends that the detention of the petitioner is not justified by the provisions of S. 3 1) of the Act and as such is invalid. He also argues that the order of detention has been passed against the petitioner by the District Magistrate, Burdwan, mala fide. According to him, the material facts stated in the notice served on the petitioner setting forth the grounds for his detention, are imaginary and non-existent and some of the grounds are vague and irrelevant; and he also contends that the affidavits filed on behalf of the respondent clearly indicate that some of the grounds on which the detaining authority relies and which must, therefore, have weighed in his mind at the time when the detention order was passed, were not disclosed to the petiti
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
