Back
1982 Supreme(All) 346
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
P. N. Goel and S. J. Hyder, JJ.
SHUSHIL KUMAR - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U.P - Respondents
. . Of .
Decided On : 04/12/1982
The grounds of detention under the NSA must be specific and relate to public order, and the scope of judicial review in cases of detention under the NSA is limited to determining whether there was sufficient material on record to justify the detention order.
Headnote:
NATIONAL SECURITY ACT - DETENTION - GROUNDS - VAGUENESS - PUBLIC ORDER - LAW AND ORDER - DISTINCTION - JUDICIAL REVIEW - SCOPE - MALA FIDES - ALLEGATION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an active member of the Lok Dal, was detained under the National Security Act (NSA) on the grounds that he was a notorious and dangerous person with criminal tendencies, that he formed a gang of such persons, and that he and his accomplices kept unlicensed pistols, knives, revolvers, etc., and used them in committing unlawful acts. The petitioner challenged the detention order on various grounds, including the vagueness of the grounds of detention, the distinction between public order and law and order, the scope of judicial review, and the allegation of mala fides.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the grounds of detention were not vague and that they related to public order, not merely law and order. The court also held that the scope of judicial review in cases of detention under the NSA was limited to determining whether there was sufficient material on record to justify the detention order, and that the court could not examine the veracity of the allegations made against the petitioner. The court further held that the allegation of mala fides was not substantiated.
Issues: 1. Whether the grounds of detention were vague. 2. Whether the grounds of detention related to public order or law and order. 3. The scope of judicial review in cases of detention under the NSA. 4. Whether the allegation of mala fides was substantiated.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The grounds of detention were not vague as they provided sufficient particulars of the petitioner's alleged activities and the threat posed by him to public order. 2. The grounds of detention related to public order as they concerned the petitioner's alleged involvement in unlawful activities that had the potential to disrupt public peace and tranquility. 3. The scope of judicial review in cases of detention under the NSA is limited to determining whether there was sufficient material on record to justify the detention order, and the court cannot examine the veracity of the allegations made against the petitioner. 4. The allegation of mala fides was not substantiated as the counter-affidavit filed by the District Magistrate totally controverted the said allegations.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed.
( 1 ) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the order dated Nov. 13, 1981 passed by the Dist. Magistrate, Allahabad in the purported exercise of his power under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980, hereinafter referred to as "the act", directing the detention of the petitioner in the Central prison, Naini under Sub-section (2)of Section 3 of the Act. The petitioner contends his detention in the Central prison Naini is illegal and void and that writ of habeas corpus may be issued directing his release from the central Prison, forthwith. Besides the Supdt Central Jail, Naini, the Distt. Magistrate and the state of U. P. have also been impleaded as opposite parties.
( 2 ) IN the petition it is stated that the petitioner in a law abiding citizen and has no previous criminal record. It is contended by him that he is an active member of the Lok Dal and the members of the ruling party are against him and apprehend that on account of the petitioners immense influence with the electorate, the scales may be turned against the ruling party in the forthcoming elections to the Nagar Mahapalika. It is stated in petition that one Sri Satish Jaiswal an M. L. A. of the ruling party has been instrumental in setting up the local police against the petitioner and since 8-3-1981 the petitioner has been involved in a number of false cases. According to the petitioner, the district administration is playing in the hands of the ruling party and has issued the impugned order against the petitioner which is illegal and void. A number of grounds have been urged to challenge the validity of the detention order passed by the Dist. Magistrate on the 3rd Nov. , 1981. We shall proceed to deal with the said grounds seriatim.
( 3 ) HOWEVER, before dealing with the submissions of the learned Counsel it is necessary to mention certain facts. When the order dated 3-11-1981 was passed by the Dist. Magistrate the petitioner was already in jail in connection with a case under Section 307, I. P. C. A copy of the detention order was sent to the Supdt. Naini Central Jail and was received by the said officer on the same date. The Superintendent, Naini Jail offered a copy of the detention order to the petitioner on the same date but he refused to accept the same. The petitioner was enlarged on bail in the case under Section 307 I. P. C. by an order dated 5-11-1981. The warrant of release was communicated to the Jail Supdt, on November 7, 1981 but the petitioner was not released from detention because an order under Section 3 of the Act had been passed against him. A fresh order of detention was served on the petitioner on November 20, 1981 and this time the petitioner accepted the service of the order. It may be stated that the State Government was informed of the order passed by the Dist. Magistrate on November 3, 1981 against the petitioner. This information was received by the State Government on 4-11-1981 and was approved by its order dated Nov. 10, 1981. Information of the detention order served on the petitioner was conveyed by the State Govt. to the Central Government on Nov. 13, 1981. Reference to the Advisory board was made on Nov. 26, 1981. The petitioner made a representation dated Dec. 3, 1981 and the same was considered by the Advisory Board. The Board gave a personal hearing to the petitioner on Dec. 17, 1981 and approved of the order of detention on the same date. The approval was conveyed to the State Government by the Board On Dec. 24, 1981. The Chief minister passed an order confirming the order of petitioners detention on Dec. 28, 1981 and the same was conveyed to the petitioner by means of an order of the State Government dated Dec, 29, 1981.
( 4 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner, in the first place, urged that here has been a non-compliance with the mandatory provision of law contained in Section 10 of the Act. According to him the detention of the petitioner u
