Back
1992 Supreme(Online)(AP) 17
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
, J
Syed Jalaluddin v. Govt. of A. P. and Others
Writ Petition No. 4161 of 1991
For the Appellant: [Counsel's name]
For the Respondents: [Counsel's name]
The court affirmed that a single serious incident can justify preventive detention under public safety laws, provided proper procedural safeguards are met.
Headnote:(A) A. P. Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Communal Offenders Act, 1984 - Sections 2(b), 3(3), 8(2) - Detention order challenged for lack of evidence constituting 'communal offender' as defined; mere prior incident insufficient for detention; principles under Art. 22(5) - Court examines legality of detention based on grounds raised. (Paras 1, 3, 6, 10)
(B) The definition of 'communal offender' requires evidence of habitual offenses, as per statutory interpretation - A single incident, if severe, can justify preventive detention to maintain public order - Premise of maintaining public interest invoked under S. 8(2) is discussed.
Facts of the case:
The father of the detenu challenges the detention order on grounds of its unconstitutionality and failure to establish that the detenu was a communal offender according to statutory definitions. The act provoking the detention was cited as unconstitutional as no adequate proof was provided.
Findings of Court:
The Court upheld the view that even a single serious incident can provide grounds for detention and that procedural safeguards under Art. 22 were adequately followed. The representation against the detention was also duly considered.
Issues: Whether the detention under the invoked Act was justified based on the definition of 'communal offender'; whether procedural rights of the detenu were violated.
Ratio Decidendi: Court determined that sufficient grounds for the detention were established through allegations of serious criminal activity and recognized the discretionary power of the detaining authority in cases involving public order. Non-disclosure of certain materials was justified under public interest provisions.
Result: Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of detention under public safety laws. (Para 1) |
| 2. rebuttal of the assertion on lack of communal offender status. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. discussion on interpreting statutory definitions in preventive detention. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. analysis of legal justification for non-disclosure and public interest. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 5. conclusion regarding the dismissal of the petition. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
1. Petitioner is the father of Syed Ghousuddin who was detained in Central Prison, Chanchalguda, Hyderabad, pursuant to an order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent in order SB (1) No.7 / S7 / COA / 91 dt. 27-9-91. The initial period of detention was four weeks from 28-9-91. The order was passed under S. 3(3) of the A. P. Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Communal Offenders Act, 1984 , hereinafter referred to as the Act. The order as approved by the 1st respondent in G.O. Rt. No.4716 G.A.D. dt. 9-10-91 and under S.12(1) of the Act. In G. O. No. 4921 dt. 23-10-1991 the same was confirmed by the Government, continuing the detention for a period of four weeks from 28-9-1991. In G.O. 4942 dt. 24-10-1991, the lst respondent directed that the detention of the petitioner should be continued for the maximum period of six months from the date of detention. Petitioner had in the meantime, submitted a representation against the detention order to the Advisory Board. It was therefore that Government passed orders on 26-11-1991 in Memo No. 1267 / Gen. A / 91-3 rejecting the representation. Petitioner submits that the order of detention and its approval and confirmation and its continuance for the full time as provided the Act as also the rejection of the representation are illegal and unconstitutional. Petitioner submits that the Act permits detention of only communal offenders as defined in S.2(b). Communal Offender' is defined to mean - "a person who, either by himself or as a member or as leader of a gang or an organisation commits or attempts to commit or abets or incites the commission of offences punishable under S. 153 - A and S. 153 - B of the IPC. or under Chapter XV of the said Code". He submits that only such communal offenders can be detained to prevent them from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of Public Order. The submission of the petitioner is that there is no finding in the order or in the grounds that the detenu was a 'communal offender' as defined in the Act. What is stated in the grounds is that he is a dangerous fanatic and is therefore a threat to maintenance of Public Oder. He also submits that only such act which is mentioned in the grounds is that a rowdy. sheet was opened in respect of him on 2-3-1991. Petitioner submits even that will not justify the order of detention. Reference is also made to the FIR in crime No. l16/1990 in respect of an incident which took place on 8-12-1990, in which, it was stated that six unknown culprits came abruptly, surrounded the complainant, fisted him and one of them stoned on the back side of the complainant due to religious feeling and attempted to take away the life of the complainant. Detenu was not identified as one of the assailants in the statement; nor was he mentioned as an assailant in the first Information Report which the complainant had filed. Petitioner therefore submits that the assertion contained in the grounds that on 8-12-1990 when the city was under communal tension, the detenu along with his associates armed with deadly weapons formed an unlawful assembly with a common object and intention to strike terror in the people of one section and to create communal disharmony attacked and stabbed Sri D. Satyanarayana, is untrue and unsustainable. He submits further that the police filed a final charge sheet in crime No. 116/190 on 2nd October, 1991 and that disclosed offences punishable under S. 153 - A and offences under Chapters XV and XVI of the Indian Penal Code. Petitioner submits that the statements of identifying witnesses record
