The detention under the National Security Act, 1980 must be justified by the Detaining Authority and must be based on valid grounds supported by material evidence. Mere presence in meetings without any overt act cannot be a relevant factor for detention under the Act.

Lahiri, J. :- The petitioner has been detained under S.3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (for short "the Act") with a view to preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community and against his detention the petitioner has preferred this Habeas Corpus application. The order of detention is dated 16-12-81 and the detenu was arrested on the following day at about 3 a.m. On 21-12-81 the petitioner was served with the grounds of detention which reads as under :

"You are the General Secretary of All Assam Karmachari Parishad (AAKP) and Convenor of Co-ordination Committee AAKP, and in that capacity you have been a party to the decisions of this organisation and to the implementation thereof.

1. On 13-6-81 you attended a meeting at the AAKP at B. Baruah College, Gauhati, which was also attended by S/Shri Tirtha Barkatoki, Krishna Baruah, Kamakhya Charan Choudhury and others, in which a decision was taken for full participation of the employees of Govt. and Semi Govt. Offices in the "Assam Bandh" on 15-6-81, for the observance of which a call was given by All Assam Students' Union (AASU), and All Assam Gana Sangram Parishad (AAGSP). Pursuant to this decision most of the State/Central Govt. and Semi Central Government employees throughout the Brahmapuira Valley districts in Assam abstained from offices and duties which seriously affected supplies and services essential to the community.

2. On 15-11-81 you attended a Steering Committee meeting of AAKP in the office of AAKP at Silpukhuri Gauhati which was attended by S/Shri Kamakhya Charan Choudhury, Tirtha Borkotoky, Haladhar Pathak and others. In this meeting a decision was taken to extend full support to the 36 hours 'Assam Bandh' for observance of which on 19th and 20th November, 1981 a call was given by AASU and AAGSP. Pursuant to this decision most of the employees of Government and Semi Government Offices remained absent from offices and duties which dislocated supplies and services essential to the community.

3. On 20-11-81 you attended a meeting of the AAKP held at the Karmachari Parishad's office at Silpukhuri, which was also attended by S/Shri Kamal Nayak, Bhairab Das, Kamakhya Charan Choudhury, Khanindra Ch. Das and others. In this meeting a decision was taken to extend support to the "Road Block" programme sponsored by AASU/AAGSP with a view to stopping the movement of Road Transport in Assam from 5 A.M. to 5 P.M. on 30-11-81. The Road Block caused serious dislocation of services and supplies essential to the community.

Above activities of yours are clearly prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community."

(Emphasis added)

Emphasis not found in judgement - Ed.

2. The petitioner made representation to the State Government, his case was considered by the Advisory Board constituted under the Act which upheld the order of detention. Before us the learned counsel for the petitioner has put forward several contentions but we propose to dispose of the petition on those grounds which appear to us to be pertinent.

3. Personal liberty is more cherished than all other freedoms taken together. Detention without trial is a serious matter and the order of detention must be justified by the Detaining Authority. Whenever human liberty is in peril and justice is threatened the citizen should receive the fullest protection from the Court within the four corners of Article 22 of the Constitution benignantly stretched, and all the safeguards of the Act liberally interpreted, of course, within the legitimate limit. Worth of human liberty is a cherished value which must be carefully watched over by the Court. At the same time we must bear in mind that survival of the State and protection of the society are no less important. It is a settled law that the "prejudicial activities" contemplated under the Act need not necessarily be activities prohibited or made punishable by a substantive p