Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RAY, C.J.I., K.K. MATHEW, A. ALAGIRISWAMI, P.K. GOSWAMI, AND R.S. SARKARIA, JJ.
Pradip Kumar Das and others, Petitioners
Versus
State of W.B. and others, Respondents.
Writ Petns, Nos. 961, 1339, 1622, 1636, 1656 and 1666 of 1973, D/- 29-4-1974.
Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 - Section 3, 14, 17-A and 13 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 22 (7) (a) - Order of Detention - Orders of Release - In Writ Petition petitioner was detained pursuant to an order of detention - He was released by State Government pursuant to an order - There was another order of detention - Petitioner was detained pursuant to that order – Held, Court considered meaning of revocation or expiry - In Ujjal Mandal case order of detention was not confirmed before expiry of three months - This Court, therefore, held that non confirmation would amount to revocation of earlier order - In Masood Alam case orders of release were held to amount to revocation or expiry of earlier orders of detention - Word "revocation" means annulling residing, withdrawing - In facts and circumstances of case orders of release cancelling orders of detention, amount to revocation of orders of detention - Word "expire" means to come to an end or to put an end to or to terminate or to become void or to become extinct - Orders of release show that Government accepted position that previous orders terminated and came to an end and petitioners were released - For these reasons Court hold that orders of release were revocation of previous orders of detention - Previous orders of detention also expired when Government passed orders of release - Second orders of detention are in violation of provisions of Section 14 of Act - Petitions allowed.
Judgement
RAY, C. J.:- This Court on 22 April, 1974 passed an order for release of the detenus. The reasons were to be given later. The reasons are as follows:
2. In Writ Petition No. 961 of 1973 the petitioner was detained pursuant to an order of detention dated 15 January, 1972. He was released by the State Government pursuant to an order dated 23 April 1973. On 25 April 1973 there was another order of detention. The petitioner was detained pursuant to that order.
3. In Writ Petition No. 1339 of 1973 the petitioner was detained pursuant to an order of detention dated 27 March, 1972. He was released by the State Government pursuant of an order dated 24 April 1973. He was detained again under an order dated 26 April, 1973.
4. In Writ Petition No. 1622 of 1973 the petitioner was detained under an order dated 6 November, 1972 The State Government released the petitioner on 28 April 1973. He was detained again pursuant to an order dated 26 April, 1973.
5. In Writ Petition No.1636 of 1973 the petitioner was detained pursuant to an order of detention dated 11 January, 1972. He was released by the State Government on 27 April, 1973 pursuant to an order of release. The petitioner was detained again on 27 April, 1973 pursuant to an order dated 24 April, 1973
6. In Writ Petition No. 1656 of 1973 the petitioner was detained pursuant to an order of detention dated 7 January, 1973. He was released by the State Government pursuant to an order dated 23 April, 1973. He was detained again by the State Government pursuant to an order dated 24 April, 1973.
7. In Writ Petition No. 1666 of 1973 the petitioner was detained pursuant to an order dated 26 October, 1972. He was released by the State Government on 28 April,1973. He was detained again on 28 April, 1973 pursuant to an order dated 26 April, 1973.
8. The common feature in all these cases is that the petitioners were released by the State Government after decision of this court in Sambhu Nath Sarkar v. State of West Bengal,(1973) 1 SCC 856. The judgement in Sambhu Nath Sarkar case (supra) was given by this court on 19 April, 1973.
9. The petitioners challenged the orders of detention after their release. The grounds of challenge are two-fold. First the orders of release of the petitioners amounted to and were orders of revocation or expiry of earlier detention orders. Second the State was not competent to pass subsequent orders of detention on the same facts and grounds as in the earlier of detention.
10. The contentions of the state were these. The orders of release were made by the State pursuant to the decision of this Court in Sambhu Nath Sarkar case (1973) 1 SCC 856 (Supra). The State had no option but to order release only because of the decision in Sambhu Nath Sarkar case (supra). The earlier detention orders because of the decision in Sambhu Nath Sarkar case (supra) could not be said to be orders with the authority of law. Therefore, the orders of detention subsequent to their release were new orders on fresh facts and had no relation to the previous orders.
11. The maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 hereinafter referred to as the Act confers power on the Central Government or the State Government to make orders detaining persons as mentioned in Section 3 of the Act. The present petitions turn on the interpretation of the provisions contained in Section 14 of the Act. Broadly stated, Section 14 of the Act provides that detention order may, at any time be revoked or modified and the revocation or expiry of the detention order shall not bar the making of a fresh facts have arisen after the date of revocation or expiry on which the Central Government or a State Government is satisfied that such an order should be made.
12. This Court in Sambhu Nath Sarkar case (1973) 1 SCC 856 held that Section 17-A of the Act which was introduced in 1971 did not satisfy the requirement of Article 22 (7) (a) of the Constitution Section 17-A if the Act was held to offend the provisions of the Constitution.
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
