Judgment

CHANDRACHUD, CJI. :- By this Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, the petitioner Mohd. Shakeel Wahid Ahmed challenges the validity of an order of detention dated November 7, 1981 passed against him by the first respondent, the State of Maharashtra, under Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, herein referred to as the Act. Earlier, the petitioners wife had filed a habeas corpus petition in the Bombay High Court for the release of the petitioner, but that petition (Writ Petition No. 579 of 1982) was dismissed by the High Court on October 28, 1982 : (Reported in 1983 Cri LJ 762). The High Court held that three out of the four grounds on which the petitioner was detained were bad for one reason or another but that the remaining ground, namely, ground No. 1 did not suffer from any defect and was enough to sustain the order of detention. While upholding the detention on one of the four grounds only, the High Court relied upon the provisions of Sec. 5-A of the Act by which an order of detention made on two or more grounds is to be deemed to have been made separately on each of such grounds and consequently, such an order cannot be deemed to be invalid merely because some of the grounds are : (i) vague, (ii) non-existent, (iii) not relevant, (iv) not connected or not proximately connected with such person, or (v) invalid for any other reason whatsoever.

2. As stated above, three out of the four grounds on which the petitioner was detained have been held to be bad by High Court. Those grounds are mentioned in paragraphs 5.2, 5.3 and 6.1 of the grounds furnished to the petitioner. Grounds 5.2 and 5.3 were held to be bad because they were neither relevant nor did they bear any "nexus, direct or indirect with the detenu." It would appear from the judgment of the High Court that this position was not controverted by the learned Public Prosecutor. In so far as the fourth ground mentioned in paragraph 6.1 is concerned, the High Court held that it was bad because important material which was relevant to that ground was neither placed before nor considered by the detaining authority while passing the order of detention. In view of the judgment of the High Court, only one out of the four grounds of detention, namely, the ground mentioned in paragraph 1.1 of the grounds furnished to the detenu requires consideration by us.

3. This petition along with a few other petitions was referred to the constitution Bench for considering the validity of Sections 5-A and 11 of the Act. We have already set out the purport of Section 5-A. Section 11 which authorises the revocation of detention orders, provides by sub-sec. (2) that the revocation of a detention order shall not bar the making of another order under Section 3 against the same person. In view of the conclusion which we have reached in this petition, it is unnecessary to consider the validity of these sections.

4. The surviving ground of detention contains the allegation that, working on a secret information received on January 13, 1981, the officers of the Marine and Preventive Wing of the Collectorate of Customs (Preventive), Bombay, intercepted a vessel named Manek Prasad in the sea off Worli at Bombay on February 2, 1981 at about 2 p.m. and seized therefrom wrist-watches valued at Rupees 18,98,935/-, textiles valued at Rupees 18,20,675, miscellaneous goods valued at Rs. 18,769/- and Indian currency of Rs. 1,540/- and 188 U.A.E. Dhirams. It is alleged that none of the seven persons who were on board the ship possessed any documents authorising them to import the aforesaid goods. The various sub-paras of this ground refer to the material which connects the petitioner with the illegal import of the goods seized from the ship.

5. Shri Jethmalani who appears on behalf of the petitioner contends that the first ground of detention is bad for several reasons, most of which are directed to the question as to whether the de