SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, CJI., P.N. BHAGWATI, AMARENDRA NATH SEN, D.P. MADON AND M.P. THAKKAR, JJ.
State of Punjab and others, Appellants
Versus
Jagdev Singh Talwandi, Respondents.
Criminal Appeal No. 692 of 1983
Decided on 16-12-1983.
Advocates appeared
Mr. K. Parasaran, Attorney General of India, Mr. Bhagwat Singh, Advocate General (Punjab), Mr. Gurmukh Singh, Addl. Advocate General of Punjab, Mr. D. S. Brar, Asstt. Advocate General, Mr. G. S. Mann, Dy. Advocate General, Mr. R. D. Aggarwal, Govt, Advocate and Miss. A. Subhashini and S. K. Bagga, Advocates with them, for Appellants; Mr. Hardev Singh, Sr. Advocate, Mr. G. S. Grewal, Sr. Advocate and M/s N. S. Das Behl, R. S. Sodhi and J.S. Sandhwalia, Advocates with them, for respondents.
* Criminal Writ Petn. No. 516 of 1983, d/- 29-11-1983 (Punj. & Har.).
(ii) National Security Act, 1980 - Section 3(3) read with Section 3(2) -Detention order passed by District Magistrate - Order challenged - District Magistrate got filing affidavit - Deputy Secretary in Home Deptt. filing affidavit - No mala fide attributed against the Distt. Magistrate - Whether in this case, failure of detaining authority in filing his own affidavit vitiates the order of detention? (No, though it is desirable that affidavit should. be filed by detaining authority himself. (Paras 25 to 29)
(iii) Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 136 - Practice of High Court to pronounce a final order without a reasoned judgment - Whether proper? (No) (Paras 31 and 32).
FINAL ORDER WITHOUT REASONED JUDGMENT - FINAL ORDER AND REASONED JUDGMENT FOR IT
-it is desirable that the final order which the High Court intends to pass should not be announced until a reasoned judgment is ready to be pronounced. It was observed by the Supreme Court in the State of Punjab v. Jagdev Singh Talwandi, AIR 1984 SC 444 that, that places the Supreme Court in a predicament because, without the benefit of the reasoning of the High Court, it is difficult for the Supreme Court to allow the leave order to be implemented.
-held, until a reasoned judgment is ready for pronouncement it is desirable that the order intended to be passed by the High Court should not be announced.
JUDGMENT
CHANDRACHUD, CJI. — This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment dated Nov. 29, 1983 of a learned single Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Criminal Writ Petition No. 516 of 1983. That writ petition was filed by the respondent. Shri Jagdev Singh Talwandi, to challenge an order of detention passed by the District Magistrate, Ludhiana, on Oct. 3, 1983 whereby the respondent was detained under Sec. 3 (3) read with S. 3 (2) of the National Security Act, 1980.
2. The respondent was arrested in pursuance of the order of detention on the night between Oct. 3 and 4, 1983. He was first lodged in the Central Jail, Patiala and from there he was taken to Ambala, Baroda and Fethegarh (U. P). He filed a Writ Petition (No. 463 of 1983) in the High Court to challenge his transfer and detention in a place far away from Ambala. He withdrew that petition on an assurance by the Government that he will be sent back to Ambala, which the Government did on October 28.
3. The grounds of detention were served on the respondent on Oct. 6, 1983. Those grounds show that the petitioner was detained on the basis of two speeches allegedly made by him : one on July 8, 1983 at Nihang Chhowani, Baba Bakala., District Amritsar and the other on Sept. 20, 1983 at Gurdwara Manji Sahib, Amritsar. The grounds furnished to the petitioner read thus:
"(1) That you in a Shaheedi Conference which was held from 11 a. m. to 4.45 p. m. on 2-7-1983 at a place known as Nihang Chhowani at Baba Bakala, District Amritsar, delivered a provocative speech to a Sikh gathering comprising about 2000/2200 persons wherein you made a pointed reference to the incident dated 2-7-1983 of encounters between Nihangs and police at Baba Bakala and Tarn Taran and stressed that in order to take revenge Sikhs would kill their (Police) four persons in lieu of the two Nihangs who had been killed in the said encounters.
(2) That while addressing a conference convened by the AISSF (All India Sikh Students Federation) on 20-9-1983 at Gurdwara Manji Sahib at Amritsar and attended by about 7000/8000 Sikh students, you made a provocative speech wherein you said that all efforts made for the success of the Akali Morcha having failed, it was still time to establish in Punjab a Government parallel to the Central Government and that you are in a position to form such a Government. You further exhorted that the establishment of Khalsa Raj was the only solution to the problems. You also made a suggestion that the Government will not accept any demand unless it was compelled by force to do so. This statement was also published in the various newspapers. A case F. I. R. No. 295 dated 27-9-1983 under Section 124-A, I. P. C.. and S. 13 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, was registered at Police Station E Division, Amritsar, which is under investigation."
4. The detaining authority stated in the last paragraph of the detention order that the respondent was being supplied the grounds of detention in Punjabi (Gurmukhi script) together with an English translation thereof and the "supporting material forming the base of the grounds of detention". The "supporting material", by which is meant particulars of the grounds of detention, was supplied to the respondent along with the grounds. These particulars consist of what is alleged to be a report of the speeches made by the respondent, as recorded by the C. I. D. branch of the Punjab Police. The particulars of which an English translation was produced in the High Court at Ext. A1 read thus :
"While speaking he said that on July 2 by bringing B. S. F., Punjab Police and other Police the unarmed Nihangs were fired at. There is no count as to how many of then were killed, because no roll call is taken of the Sikhs; how many came and how many went.
Further said that in Punjab hundreds of innocent Sikhs have been made the target of bullets. The Government has seen that the Sikhs go away after paying homage to the martyrs. Now we will ha
relied on : Ram Krishan Bhardwaj v. State of Delhi
Khudiram Das v. State of West Bengal
Mohammad Yousuf Rather v. State of Jammu and Kashmir
Shibban Lal Saksena v. State of U.P.
Dwarka Dass Bhatia v. State of Jammu and Kashmir
relied on : Beni Madhob Shaw v. State of W.B.
Har Jas Dev Singh v. State of Punjab
Vakil Singh v. State of Jammu and Kashmir
Ichhu Devi Choraria v. Union of India
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.