1974 Supreme(SC) 372

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Y.V. CHANDRACHUD AND P.N. BHAGWATI, JJ.
Ram Bahadur Rai, Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar and others, Respondents.
Writ Petn. No. 347 of 1974 and Criminal Appeal No. 295 of 1974, D/-12-11-1974.

Headnote:Maintenance of Internal Security Act 1971, Section 3(1) (a) (ii) & Constitution of India Article 22 (5)–Agitation whether implies violence and threat to Public Order–Gujarat type agitation whether means violent agitation–Detention based on such grounds whether valid.

       Held, that it is wrong to treat every agitation as implying violence. The glorious history of our freedom movement exemplifies that agitation may primarily be intended to be and can be peaceful. But agitation can also be meant to be violent under an apparently lawful cloak and there is ample power to qwell these. But in regard to such social and political question, the normal meaning of the word is to arouse or attempt to arouse public interest.

       (Para 22)

       Held further, that Gujarat type agitation is a phrase of vague and uncertain import and it could not be assumed to mean a clarion call to violence. If the charge be that the petitioner had preached violence, the grounds of detention must say so. Such a serious allegation ought not to be left to mere speculation because then the petitioner could have had no opportunity to make an effective representation against the order of detention. Article 22(5) of the Constitution require that the defence shall be afforded the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order of detention. The right has to be real and effective, not illusory or empty. If the petitioner was not apprised of what was truly alleged against him and if the accusation reasonably, was unintelligible, he was deprived of an opportunity to make an effective representation against the detention order.

       (Paras 16, 17 & 18)

       Maintenance or Internal Security Act 1971, Section 3 (1) (a) (ii)–Grounds of detention whether to be read as one composite document–Each one of the grounds whether forms a distinct and separate reason for detention and ought to be examined separately on its own merits.

       Held, that the grounds of detention, if they are inter related, so that one can say that there has been an interplay of one ground on the other, they can be read as one composite document.

       (Para 11)

       Held, on facts of the case, that grounds nos. 1 & 2 has to be read disjunctively each one referring to a distinct episode. One is not sequel to the other and the validity of the two grounds has to be determined independently on the merits of each.

       (Para 14)

       Held further, that grounds 3 to 7 constituted a composite interconnected indictment comprising events which followed in quick succession as a part of the same preplanned objective.

       (Para 15)

       The grounds may bear conceivably a casual connection but such a connection must either be reflected in, the recitals of particulars or else the detaining authority must disclose in its affidavit the basis of its belief that the events followed upon one another as cause and effect or as part of the same plan or movement.

       (Para 13)

       Maintenance of Internal Security Act 1971, Section 3 (ii) and Constitution of India Article 19 (1) (a) (b) (c)–Being member of a Sanchalan Samity or Steering Committee to conduct students agitation–Nexus to Public Order.

       Held, that the formation of an association for the ventilation of grievance in a lawful manner is a part of the constitutional right of free speech and expression, the right to assemble peaceably and without arms and the right to form association, is guaranteed by Article 19(1) (a) (b) & (c) of the Constitution. The State under clauses (2) (3) & (4) of Article 19 has right to make laws for imposing reasonable, restriction in exercise of these rights in the interest of Public Order. An order of detention passed under any such law has again to answer the test that there has to be nexus between the acts of the detenu founding the order of detention and the purpose of detention. The mere fact that the petitioner was instrumental in forming Sanchalan Samity for conducting the students agitation or that he readily agreed to become a member of that Samity can not justify the conclusion that these acts are calculated to disturb public order. Peaceful protests and the voicing of a contrary opinion are powerful wholesome weapon in the democratic repertory. It is therefore unconstitutional to pick up a peaceful protestant and to put him behind the prison bars. The right to repine can be taken away only for a constitutionally recognised purpose as for example in the interest of public order. That nexus is lacking in this case.

       (Para 21)