Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
V. D. Tulzapurkar and R. B. Misra, JJ.
Dhananjoy Das - Appellant
versus
District Magistrate and another - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 199 of 1982
Decided on 16-8-1982
A. Vagueness of grounds as a base to challenge detention - Propriety of When a ground can be held to be vague -
B. Rights of detenu under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India-Infringement of the right - When -
C. Existence of ground of detention at time of passing the order
Where the District Magistrate, Darrang passed an order of detention on 3rd of Jan., 1982 under Section 3(3) of the National Security Act, 1980, the order of detention along with grounds was supplied to Appellant/Detenu on 3rd of January, 1982. The very day on which he was arrested. The Detenu made representation on 9-1-1982 through Superintendent of Special Jail which was forwarded to Government on 10-1-1982. The order was challenged on two grounds: (1) vagueness of grounds; and (2) the facts narrated in the grounds were irrelevant.
Held -
A. There is no bar to have introductory paragraphs in the grounds. The observations only mean all allegations of facts which have led to the passing of the order of detention will form part of the grounds of detention. It is therefore difficult to accept the contention that there could be no introductory para in the grounds.
Whether a particular paragraph in the grounds amounts only to a preamble or introduction is to be determined on the facts and circumstances of each case and it is open to the Court to come to its own conclusion whether that paragraph is only an introductory para or contains the grounds on the basis of which the detaining authority had the subjective satisfaction for passing the order of detention.
B. The law is now well settled that a detenue has two rights under Article 22(5) of the Constitution: (1) to be informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds on which the order of detention is made, that is, the grounds which led to the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority, and (2) to be afforded the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order of detention, that is, to be furnished with sufficient particulars to enable him to make a representation which on being considered may obtain relief to him. The inclusion of a irrelevant or non-existent ground, among other irrelevant grounds is a infringement of the first of the rights and the inclusion of an obscure or vague ground among other clear and definite grounds is an infringement of the second of the rights. Therefore in this view of the legal position if the grounds are vague and indefinite that would amount to an infringement of the second right of the appellant.
C. There is no denying of the fact that the ground of detention must be in existence on the date when the order was passed and the authority concerned has to be satisfied about the grounds of detention on the date of the order and satisfaction of detaining authority must be clear on the face of it from the grounds of detention and no extraneous evidence is admissible to prove what actually weighed with the detaining authority while passing the order of detention.
JUDGMENT
Misra, J. - The present appeal by certificate is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Gauhati dated 23rd of February, 1982 dismissing the petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the order of detention of the appellant.
The District Magistrate, Darrang passed an order of detention on 3rd of January, 1982 against the appellant under section 3(3) of the National Security Act, 1980. The order of detention along with the grounds was supplied to the appellant on the same day, that is, on 3rd of January, 1982. The appellant was also arrested on the same day. He made a representation on the 9th of January, 1982 through the Superintendent of Special Jail who forwarded the same to the Government on 10th of January, 1982. The State Government received the same on 11th of January, 1982 and it was rejected on 13th of January, 1982.
The order of detention was challenged by the appellant on two grounds: (1) that the grounds of detention were vague, and (2) that the facts narrated in the grounds related to law and order situation and not to public order. The High Court repelled both the grounds and dismissed the writ petition by its order dated 23rd of February, 1982. The High Court, however, granted a certificate for leave to appeal to this Court.
Before dealing with the contentions in this case on behalf of the parties it will be appropriate at this stage to refer to the grounds of detention which were served on the appellant:
"1. Sri Dhananjoy Das, aged about 50 is the President of Aurbanchalia Lok Parishad, Tex pur Unit. He is a contractor by profession. Sri Das has been playing a leading part in the current agitation on foreigners issue in collaboration with other active agitators who are leaders of AASU, Karmachari Parishad and Gana Sangram Parishad, by organising bundhs, non-cooperation programme, inciting people to violate law from time to time. Such activities have disturbed peaceful, tolerant and harmonious life of society.
2. In connection with the programme of Rasta Roko commencing from 0/50 hrs. of 31-12- 81 to 1700 hrs. of 1-1-82 Sri Das in collaboration with others like Nabab Shahjamal, Diren Baishya etc. mobilised thousands of people from Parbatia, and other neighbouring areas of the town to give obstructions to motor vehicles on 31-12-81 and railway traffic on 1-1-82. At the instigation of Sri Das the people came in large numbers violating prohibitory orders. On 1-1-82 the crowd was instigated by him and aforesaid associates to pelt stones, brickbats etc. on police personnel on duty. This led to greater violence in which railway slippers were burnt, and driver of fire-brigade was shot at. Ultimately firing was resorted two and three persons died of bullet injury.
3. On 2-1-82, when the whole Texpur Town was under curfew, Sri Das along with his other associates mobilised people of Parbatia etc. and led a procession of thousands of people through curfew- bound areas raising slogans instigating people to violate curfew. This crowd had to be dispersed by use of force.
4. Such activities of Sri Dhananjoy Das are prejudicial to the interest of maintenance of public order. It is essential therefore that in order to prevent him from indulging in such like prejudicial acts, Sri Das is detained under National Security Act."
Shri Rangarajan, counsel for the appellant, seriously contended that the first paragraph of the grounds is so vague that the order of detention must be quashed on this ground alone. Shri A.M. Majumdar, Advocate General of Assam, on the other hand has contended that the 1st paragraph of the grounds was only a prelude or introductory and does not deal with the grounds on which the District Magistrate had his subjective satisfaction for passing the order of detention.
There is no doubt that if the first paragraph of the grounds constitute the grounds of detention, it is vague and the order of detention must be quashed on the ground of vagueness with regard to the statements cont
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
