SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1981 Supreme(Gau) 39

GAUHATI HIGH COURT
K. LAHIRI AND S. M. ALI, JJ.
PRADIP DAS
VERSUS
DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, DARRANG AND ANOTHER
Civil Rule No. 304 (HC) of 1981,
Decided on : 20 -4 -1981.

The grounds for detention must be specific and relevant, and the detenu must be furnished with all the material particulars and/or basic facts or basic materials necessary to make a representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution.

Headnote:

PREVENTIVE DETENTION - MAINTENANCE OF PUBLIC ORDER - VAGUENESS OF GROUNDS - DENIAL OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT UNDER ARTICLE 22(5) OF THE CONSTITUTION - VOID ORDER OF DETENTION.

Fact of the Case:

The detenu, a young person aged 23 years, was detained under the preventive detention law on the grounds that he was acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and for the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the grounds for detention were vague and irrelevant, and that the detenu's fundamental right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution was denied for non-furnishing of any material particulars and/or basic facts or basic materials.

Issues: Whether the grounds for detention were vague and irrelevant.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the grounds for detention were vague and irrelevant, and that the detenu's fundamental right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution was denied for non-furnishing of any material particulars and/or basic facts or basic materials.

Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and directed that the detenu be released forthwith unless he is wanted in connection with any other case.

JUDGEMENT

Lahiri, J. :- Preventive detention laws have been supported on the score that "malignant diseases call for drastic remedies". But what curative method is taken when a young person pines "in bastille". It is true that under certain circumstances, detention is essential for the security of the State, to maintain public order as well as to maintain supplies and services essential to the community. The persons are detained so that they may not stand in the way of the security of the State. Public order/maintenance of supplies and services. But it is a detention without trial and based exclusively on the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. The detenus invariably brood within the four corners of the jail walls and say that "justice" was denied to them. The detention laws have been made by Parliament and it is a valid law and we must render our judgement "in accordance with law". But Judges have responsibilities to the society, to the State and to the future generation. A class is created as a result of detentions members of their families feel the impact of detention. But what "curative methods" are provided in the Act insofar as the detenus are concerned ? Has the law made any provision for chasing the wayward lifestyle of a detenu ? Experience shows that on release a detenu becomes a hero. More often than not he along with his family members comes out openly to act against any form of Government established by law. It is perhaps not our concern, but we have just expressed our feeling as to what will happen when a large number of persons detained would come out of jail and form a class. They might be potential danger to the society. There must be check and balance. The extreme power of detention must be exercised in extreme cases. It should not be used as a soft handle to detain all and sundry. Youth is restless. It is the virtue of the young men that they can surge forward to set right every wrongs it is the law of nature. To achieve the object, namely, to right the wrong sometimes young people use wrong weapons or consider a person or body as enemy under wrong impression. When a taught is told by his teacher not to do a certain thing the teacher becomes the enemy of the taught. Youth does not know wasting time. Young persons do not have much time to think in terms of ultimate good or bad. They push forward and sometimes overstep, A welfare State must be a welfare State and take curative measure rather than penal action in the name of preventive law. There is revolt in every sphere of activities and it has become the order of the day-call it a white revolution, green revolution or cultural revolution or as a matter of that by any name. We feel that some form of curative measures need be found out by the law makers to cure the wayward minds. We say this far and no further.

2. The detenu is a young person, aged hardly 23 years. He has been detained in order to Prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order/for the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community. He was furnished with the grounds. The learned counsel for the detenu urged several points, however, we are satisfied that there is no ground for detaining the Petitioner under the head maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community. The only material which touches "the supplies and services" is in para 2 of the grounds, which reads as follows :

"He has been closely asserting himself with the current agitation since the very beginning. He is one of the principal organisers of picketing of offices, banks etc. 'bundh' etc. at Dhekiaiuli from time to time, during the past year. Such picketing and Bundh have not only been disturbing public order but also disturbing supply and services essential to the community (including the road transport and the railway)."

We consider it to be unnecessary to reiterate what is a vague ground. The safeguards to a detenu under the umbrella of Arts, 22(5






Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top