1973 Supreme(SC) 320

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
11-10-1973.
K.K. MATHEW, M.H. BEG AND A.K. MUKHERJEA, JJ.
Prabhu Dayal Deorah etc. Petitioners
Versus
District Magistrate, Kamrup and others, Respondents.
Writ Petns. Nos. 1496-1497 of 1973, D/- 11-10-1973.

Headnote:

Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 - Section 3 (2) (a), 10, 9 , 3(3) , 11 (1) , (4) - Rice Milling (Regulation) Act - Preventive Detention Act of 1950 - Section 3 – Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 32 and 22 (5) - Maintenance of Supplies and Services - Grounds of Detention - Orders of Release - Whether or not there is sufficient cause for detention of person concerned - Whether grounds are so vague as to disable petitioners from making effective representations against detention orders or otherwise vitiate detention orders - Whether detention order would have been made at all if only one or two good reasons had been before them - Whether, in a case where representations including those against vagueness of grounds, were made and were pending before an Advisory Board - Whether residue was sufficient for detention, detenu could be held to have been really deprived of right to make a representation - Whether a detenu was or was not given due opportunity of making an effective representation - Whether any of grounds supplied to petitioners is vague - Whether reference to recovery of sugar so long ago did not vitiate detention order - Whether some of grounds are merely vague or are irrelevant and extraneous to purposes of Act - Whether alleged delay in considering petitioners representations was sufficient to vitiate their detentions of on ground of infringement of their constitutional right - Whether grounds of detention show that detention is ab initio illegal - Whether they are so vague and devoid of particulars as to amount to a denial of right to make an effective representation at earliest opportunity - Whether opportunity of effective representation has been denied - Whether it was necessary to detain petitioner for preventing them from acting in a manner prejudicial to maintenance of supplies and services essential to community - Whether disposal of representations by Government was inordinately delayed and for that reason detention orders are vitiated - Whether detaining authority did apply its mind to other grounds mentioned in grounds communicated to petitioners - Whether social security is more precious than personal liberty in scale of values – Held, Court do not think that because representations of petitioners are pending consideration before Advisory Board and Advisory Board would also go into question of vagueness of grounds communicated to them, this Court should not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 32 - In other words, Court cannot agree with proposition that because Advisory Board was seized of matter when writ petitions were filed and would also consider contention of petitioners in their representations that grounds were vague, Court should not interfere with orders of detention on score that one of grounds communicated to petitioners was vague - Nor Court is satisfied that fact that petitioners could have asked for further particulars but that they did not do so, would be enough to salvage orders of detention - Facts of cases might induce mournful reflection how an honest attempt by an authority charged with duty of taking prophylactic measure to secure maintenance of supplies and services essential to community has been frustrated by what is popularly called a technical error - Court say and think it is necessary to repeat, that gravity of evil to community resulting from anti-social activities can never furnish an adequate reason for invading personal liberty of a citizen, except in accordance with procedure established by Constitution and laws - History of personal liberty is largely history of insistence on observance of procedure - There will be no social security without maintenance of adequate supplies and services essential to community - But social security is not only goal of a good society - There are other values in a society - Our country is taking singular pride in democratic ideals enshrined in its constitution and most cherished of these ideals is personal liberty - It would indeed be ironic if, in name of social security, Court would sanction subversion of this liberty - But whatever be impact on maintenance of supplies and services essential to community, when a certain procedure is prescribed by Constitution or laws for depriving a citizen of his personal liberty, Court think it our duty to see that that procedure is rigorously observed, however strange this might sound to some ears.