Back
1986 Supreme(All) 16
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
K. N. SINGH, B. L. YADAV
RAM KRIPAL SINGH - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U.P. - Respondents
HAB. COR. WRIT PETN. 7228 Of 1985
Decided On : 01/15/1986
Sidharath Shukla
Stale grounds of detention and distinction between public order and law and order in the context of preventive detention under the National Security Act, 1980.
Headnote:
NATIONAL SECURITY ACT, 1980 - S. 3(2) - DETENTION - GROUNDS - STALENESS - PUBLIC ORDER - LAW AND ORDER - DISTINCTION - SINGLE INCIDENT - SUFFICIENCY.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the order of detention passed under S. 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980, on the grounds that the grounds of detention were stale, did not relate to public order, and that he was not heard by the Advisory Board.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the grounds of detention, relating to incidents that occurred in 1983 and 1984, were stale and did not have any nexus with the order of detention passed in 1985. The Court also found that the third ground, relating to an incident in 1984, was not related to public order but to law and order, and therefore, could not be a valid ground for detention under S. 3(2) of the Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the grounds of detention were stale and did not have any nexus with the order of detention? 2. Whether the third ground of detention related to public order or law and order?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the grounds of detention, relating to incidents that occurred in 1983 and 1984, were stale and did not have any nexus with the order of detention passed in 1985, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Ajay Dixit v. State of U. P. 2. The Court held that the third ground of detention, relating to an incident in 1984, was not related to public order but to law and order, and therefore, could not be a valid ground for detention under S. 3(2) of the Act, relying on the Supreme Court's decisions in Pushkar Mukerji v. State of West Bengal, Arun Ghosh v. State of West Bengal, Ashok Kumar v. Delhi Administration, Ram Ranjan Chaterji v. State of West Bengal, and Ajay Dixit v. State of U. P.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the petition, quashed the impugned order of detention, and directed the respondents to set the petitioner at liberty forthwith.
( 1 ) BY this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution the petitioner has challenged the order of detention dated 15-2-1985 passed under S. 3 (2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (for short the Act) by the District Magistrate, Deoria. The impugned order has been passed on the basis of the grounds that the District Magistrate was satisfied that with a view to prevent the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order the detention of the petitioner was inevitable.
( 2 ) THE grounds of detention as required by Sec. 8 of the Act were communicated to the petitioner. Those grounds translated in English read as follows : - (I) On 3-4-1983 at 10 A. M. in Kachchli Hatta Crossing of Barhaj Bazar you along with your friends killed Rudra Pratap Singh Attal. As a result thereof the persons in the market ran away and the market remained closed for a number of days. Crime No. 91/83 under Ss. 147/148/149/302, I. P. C. was registered and the charge-sheet was submitted to the Court on 6-7-1983. The case is still under consideration. You have threatened the witnesses of the case and they are not daring to come to depose in Court. (ii) On 2-3-1984 at about 6 A. M. on the road going from Barhaj to Suneri you along with your associates attacked Rudal Singh with rifle, gun etc. and thereby injured seriously Kamal Kishore Singh, Sattan Singh, Ashutosh Singh and Rudal Singh. On account of injuries Ashutosh Singh and Sattan Singh died on the spot and Kamal Kishore Singh died in the hospital. As a result thereof the entire Bhulwani Barhaj Road remained closed. A case (Crime No. 24 of 1984) under ss. 147/148/149/301/302, I. P. C. was registered and the charge-sheet was submitted. On account of your influence the witnesses are not daring to depose in Court. (iii) On 14-12-1984 at about 4 P. M. you armed with fire-arms created terror at the time of the market by firing from country made pistol, thereby a terror was created in the locality and people ran away leaving the shops and the residents closed their doors and Mail Barhaj Road was closed for hours together and after police reached people came out of their houses.
( 3 ) THE petitioner was also directed to make a representation against the order of detention to the appropriate Government. The petitioner had made the representation to the State Government which was in fact placed before the Advisory Board constituted under S. 9 of the Act. The grounds of detention were also placed by the State Government before the Advisory Board as required by S. 10 of the Act. The Advisory Board after hearing the petitioner, as provided under S. 11, submitted its opinion to the State Government to the effect that there was sufficient cause for continued detention of the petitioner. This is how the petitioner is in continued detention.
( 4 ) WE have heard Sri Sidharath Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Girdhar Malviya, learned counsel for the State.
( 5 ) SRI Shukla urged that S. 5-A as added by Ordinance No. 6 of 1984 (with effect from 21-6-1984) was invalid, unconstitutional and violative of Arts. 14, 19, 21 and 22 of the Constitution, the petitioner was not heard by the Advisory Board, that ground Nos. 1 and 2 were of the period of 3-4-1983 and 2-3-1984 but no order of detention was passed during 1984 and as late as on 15-2-1985 the order of detention has been passed. Those grounds are stale and have no nexus with the opinion formed by the District Magistrate leading to the order of detention. It was also urged that in any case these grounds did not make out a case for maintenance of public order, rather these were the grounds relating to the law and order and were illegally made the basis of the order of detention which was beyond the scope of S. 3 (2) of the Act.
( 6 ) SRI Malviya urged that S. 5-A of the Act was not invalid, that in Habeas Corpus Petition No. 11151 of 1984 (Decided on 1-8-1985 Ashok Dixit v. Union of India) a Full Be
