1. Detention under Defence of India Rules — Habeas corpus petition challenging detention order served while in jail and alleged lack of review by the reviewing authority. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
1966 Supreme(SC) 135
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.K. SARKAR, C.J.I., J.R.MUDHOLKAR, R.S. BACHAWAT, J.M. SHELAT AND RAGHUBAR DAYAL, JJ.
Gopi Ram, Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan and others, Respondents.
Writ Petn. No. 14 of 1966 D/- 19-4-1966.
Advocates appeared
Mr. S. C. Agarwala, Advocate (Amicus curiae), for Petitioner; Mr. M. M. Tiwari, Senior Advocate (Mr. R. N. Sachthey, Advocate with him), for Respondents.
Advocates:
M.M.TIVARI, R.N.SACH, S.C.AGRAWAL
M.M.TIVARI, R.N.SACH, S.C.AGRAWAL
The service of a preventive detention order on a person already in jail does not automatically render the detention illegal. Validity depends on the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority, which, if not mala fide, is not subject to judicial review regarding its propriety.
Headnote:(A) Defence of India Rules, 1962 - Rule 30(1)(b) and Rule 30(A)(7) - Constitution of India - Article 32 - Detention of a person already in jail - Validity of detention order - Service of order while in custody does not automatically render the detention illegal - Subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is paramount in the absence of mala fides - Where the satisfaction is based on grounds existing prior to the person's incarceration as an under-trial prisoner, the subsequent service of the order in jail is permissible. (Paras 4, 5, 8)
(B) Review of detention order - Compliance with statutory requirements - Averment in affidavit by the concerned authority regarding the fact of review to be accepted in the absence of evidence to the contrary - Mere absence of explicit language in the final order does not prove lack of review. (Para 9)
Facts of the case:
A person was detained under preventive detention rules. An initial order was cancelled due to a defect and a fresh order was passed. The person was served with the fresh order while already in jail as an under-trial prisoner for a criminal offence. The petitioner challenged the detention on the grounds that service of the order while in jail constituted an illegal "double detention" and that the mandatory review by the designated authority had not been conducted.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the detaining authority's satisfaction was formed based on circumstances existing before the person was in jail. The service of the order while in custody does not invalidate it if the subjective satisfaction is genuine and not mala fide. Furthermore, the court accepted the official affidavit confirming that the mandatory review had been conducted, noting that the absence of explicit language in the Governor's order did not override the categorical statement in the affidavit.
Issues: Whether the service of a detention order on a person already in jail custody renders the detention illegal and whether the failure to explicitly state the review process in the final order vitiates the detention.
Ratio Decidendi: The validity of a detention order does not depend on whether the person was in jail at the time of service; rather, it depends on the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. In the absence of mala fides, such satisfaction cannot be questioned by the court, especially when based on facts preceding the jail custody.
Result: Petition dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
constitutional law
-
fundamental rights
- habeas corpus (Para 1)
-
fundamental rights
- administrative law
- crime and sentencing
Table of Contents
2. Validity of detention order served on a person already in jail custody — Failure of the reviewing authority to review the detention order. (Para 3 )
3. Validity of detention depends on the authority's subjective satisfaction and absence of mala fides, regardless of whether the person was in jail at the time of service. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 )
4. A detention order is not invalid merely because it is served on a person in jail, provided the authority's subjective satisfaction is not tainted by mala fides. (Para 8 )
5. Petition dismissed. (Para 10 )
6. Can a detention order be legally served on a person already in jail custody?
Yes. As an abstract proposition of law, the authority is not precluded from passing a detention order against a person in jail. The validity depends on the surrounding circumstances and the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. (Para 4 , 5 , 8 )
7. Does the service of a detention order on a prisoner constitute illegal double detention?
Not necessarily. If the order is based on the authority's satisfaction arrived at before the person entered jail, or if it is a fresh order following the cancellation of a previous order, it is not inherently illegal. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 )
8. What is the standard for challenging the subjective satisfaction of a detaining authority?
The court cannot question the propriety of the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction unless it is proven that the authority acted with mala fides. (Para 8 )
9. How is the requirement for review of a detention order verified when the order itself is not explicit?
The court may rely on a categorical statement in an affidavit filed by the relevant authority, such as the District Magistrate, confirming that the review was conducted. (Para 9 )
Judgment
MUDHOLKAR, J. : The petitioner who has been detained in the Central Jail, Jaipur under an order dated January 19, 1965 made by the District Magistrate, Ganganagar under Cl. (b) of Sub-r. (1) of R. 30 of the DEFENCE OF INDIA RULES , 1962 has moved this Court under Art. 32 of the Constitution for the grant of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus.
2. An order of detention of the petitioner under the aforesaid provision was first made on April 5, 1963. It could not be served on the petitioner for a long time because it is said that he was absconding. On November l, l964 he was arrested in connection with an offence under S. 307/395, Indian Penal Code but was released on bail. On November 4, 1964 the order of detention was served on him and he was sent to the Central Jail, Jaipur for being detained. On January 18, 1965 the original order of detention was cancelled by the Government because, we are informed, informed of some defect therein. The order of cancellation was served on him on January 21, 1965 and he was released in pursuance thereto. Immediately thereafter however, he was re-arrested under a warrant issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Karampur in respect of the offence under S. 307/395, I. P. C. Prior to this, that is, on January 19, l965 the District Magistrate, Ganganagar made an order of detention of the petitioner. This order was served on him in jail on January 23, 1965. Since that date he is in detention. By his order dated July 7, 1965 the Governor of Rajasthan, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-r. (7) of R. 30 (A) directed that the petitioner s detention be continued.
3. Mr. S. C. Agarwala appearing for the petitioner has challenged the detention of the petitioner on two grounds: (1) that as the petitioner was already in jail when the order dated January 19, 1965 was served on him, his detention is illegal, (2) that the reviewing authority contemplated by sub-r. (7) of R. 30 (A) did not review the order of detention and, therefore, the order made by the Governor on July 7, l965 is vitiated.
4. In support of the first contention reliance is placed by learned counsel on the decision of this Court in Rameshwar Shaw v District Magistrate, Burdwan , AIR 1964 SC 334. In that case an order of detention was made against a person under S. 3 (1) of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 at a point of time when that person was an under-trial prisoner in jail and served on him in jail. It was contended before this Court that it would not be possible for the detaining authority to come to the conclusion that person who is in jail custody may act in a prejudicial manner unless he is detained While dealing with this contention this Court observed that it is necessary to bear in mind the past conduct or antecedent history of the person on which the detaining authority purports to act, that the activities of the person must be proximate in point of time to the making of the order of detention and also that these should have a rational connection with the conclusion that the detention of the person is necessary. It is true that upon the facts of that case this Court quashed the order of detention but it also observed thus
"As abstract proposition of law, there may not be any doubt that S. 3 (1) (a) does not preclude the authority from passing an order of detention against a person whilst he is in detention or in jail; but the relevant facts in connection with the making of the order may differ and that may make a difference in the application of the principle that a detention order can be passed against a person in jail."
5. This decision was referred to in Makhan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1964 SC 1120, and it was held there that the principles laid down therein would also apply to the case of a person against whom an order of detention is made under R. 30 of the DEFENCE OF INDIA RULES . Mr. Agarwala relies upon the observations of this Court in the aforesaid decision to the effect that the service of a detentio
