PETITIONER: DAKTAR MUDI Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF WEST BENGAL DATE OF JUDGMENT16/09/1974 BENCH: REDDY, P. JAGANMOHAN BENCH: REDDY, P. JAGANMOHAN BHAGWATI, P.N. GOSWAMI, P.K. SARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH CITATION: 1974 AIR 2086 1975 SCR (2) 61 1975 SCC (3) 301 CITATOR INFO : RF 1975 SC 550 (13) ACT: Preventive detention-Grounds of detention communicated to detenu-Right of Court to examine record to see if any other material influenced the subjective satisfaction of detaining authority. HEADNOTE: The petitioner was detained under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971. He was served with the grounds for his detention. In a petition challenging the detention the District Magistrate filed his counter affidavit stating that lie had passed the order of detention after being bona fide satisfied from the. materials on record, that it was necessary to detain him and that the grounds furnished to the detenu were the only grounds on which he based his satisfaction for making the order, though other materials were also placed before him.' This Court wanted to look into the record in order to be satisfied that the. other materials were not such as would have in any manner influenced the District Magistrate in arriving at a subjective satisfaction. On the contention of the respondent that this Court ought not to do so when the District Magistrate had stated that he had arrived at the satisfaction, only on the grounds mentioned in the detention order, HELD : There is a possibility that the materials on record would disclose. activities of the detenu which were proximate and of a serious nature having. nexus with the object of the Act. If such elements exist then this Court would, be justified in taking the view that they must have influenced the subjective, satisfaction of the detaining authority. This Court has held that where' there are several grounds and if one ground is vague then it is difficult to say whether the ground which is vague and in respect of which the detenu could not make an effective representation did not influence the mind of the detaining authority in arriving- at the subjective satisfaction, and that the detention order would therefore be invalid. If so, it would be equally invalid in a case where there are other materials on which the detaining authority could have been influenced in arriving at the subjective satisfaction but which had not been mentioned in. the grounds of detention nor communicated to the detenu. Hence, whether the.. other materials on record had any effect on the mind of the detaining authority cannot be accepted solely on his statement. because, that would be accepting the mere ipsi dixit of the detaining authority. [62E-64B] It may be that the record and bio data of the detenu may disclose materials which have no nexus or proximity or are vague or, having regard to their nature or magnitude, are not such as would have been considered by the detaining authority as essential. In such a case the validity of the detention order would not be affected. [64B-C] In the present case, the other materials are remote in time and have no, nexus with the object of detention, and if they had been stated in the grounds or communicated to the detenu, the detention would have been held invalid. The Di- strict Magistrate, therefore, quite rightly. did not rely on those other' materials and was justified in his assertion that he did not do so. [64H-65B] JUDGMENT:
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 116 of 1974.
(Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, of India)
Ravinder Banga, for the petitioner.
Sukumar Basu & Co. for the respondent.
62
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
JAGANMOHAN REDDY, J. The petitioner challenges his detention
under the Maintenance of Internal Security-.Act, 1971, as
being illegal. He was arrested on July 20, 1972, and sent
to Midnapore Central Jail. On the same day he was served
with the order of detention along with the grounds of his
detention, which, inter alia, stated thus :
“2. On 26-4-1972 between 14.35 hrs. and 14.45
hrs., you along with your associates attacked
the box wagon of train No. D/N. 140-78 at
through yard, Nimpura near east cabin Home
Signal and looted away rice bags from the said
wagon. Due to the act of yours the train
suffered detention for about half an hour.
Thus you acted in a manner prejudicial to the
maintenance of supplies and services essential
to the community.
3.On 28-5-72 at about 18.35 hrs., you
alone with your associates stopped goods train
No. 501 Up at KM 119/15 near Ayma P. S.
Kharagpur Town, Midnapore by disconnecting
hose pipes and looted away huge quantities of
brake blocks and pull rods used for the
maintenance, construction and operation of
railways.
Due to this act of yours, the train suffered
detention for about half an hour.
Thus you acted in a manner prejudicial to the
maintenance of supplies and services essential
to the community.”
The petitioner was asked to make a representation to the
State Government against his detention order if he so chose
and also to intimate if he wanted to be heard by the
Advisory Board in person. He was further informed that his
case will be placed before the Advisory Board within thirty
days from the date of his detention under the order.
On October 10, 1972, the State Government placed before the
Advisory Board the grounds on which the detention order was
made as also the report made by the District Magistrate
under sub-s. (3) of s. 3 of the said Act. The
representation of the petitioner was received by the State
Government on October 11, 1972, and after due consideration
it was rejected by it on October 13, 1912. It was sent to
the Advisory Board on October 24, 1972. On October 30,
1972, the Advisory Board, after giving a personal hearing to
the petitioner, submitted its report to the State Government
stating that in its opinion there was sufficient cause for
the detention of the petitioner. The detention order was
confirmed by the State Government on November 3, 1972.
It will be seen that the requirements of law regarding the
time schedule have been fully complied with and there is no
defect in the detention proceedings on that score. The
District Magistrate’s
63
affidavit stated that he hall passed the detention order
after being bona fide satisfied from the materials on record
as stated in the grounds of detention that with a view to
preventing the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial
to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the
community, it was necessary to detain him under the
provisions of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act,
1971. He further stated that the grounds furnished to the
detenu were the only grounds on which he based his
satisfaction for making the said detention order though
other materials were also placed before him. In view of
this statement that “other materials were also placed before
him”, but his satisfaction was based merely on the grounds
stated in the detention order, we wanted to be satisfied
that those materials were not such as would have in any
manner influenced the District Magistrate in arriving at a
subjective satisfaction.
It was contended by Mr. Mukherjee on behalf of the State
Government that this Court ought riot look into. the record
for satisfying itself as to whether the District Magistrate
could have arrived at the conclusion when he says he has
arrived at that satisfaction only on the grounds mentioned
in the detention order. We do not think that this would be
a correct approach. Where the liberty of a subject is
involved and he has been detained without trial, under a law
made pursuant to Art. 22 which provides certain safeguards,
it is the duty of this Court as the custodian and sentinel
on the ever vigilant guard of the freedom of an individual
to scrutinise with due care and anxiety that this precious
right which he has under the Constitution is not in any way
taken away capriciously, arbitrarily or without any legal
justification.
This Court has held that where grounds are furnished to the
detenu those grounds must not be vague and must be such as
to enable him to make a proper and effective representation
against his detention. This Court has further held that
where there are several grounds, even if one ground is
vague, then it is difficult to say whetherthe ground
which is vague and_ in respect of which the detenu could not
make an effective representation did not influence the mind
of the detaining authority in arriving at his subjective
satisfaction that the detenu would in future be likely to
act in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies
and services essential to the community. If the detention
order is held invalid on this count, it would be equally so
in a case where there are other materials on which the
detaining authority could have been influenced in arriving
at his subjective satisfaction but which he has not
mentioned in the grounds of detention, nor communicated them
to the detenu. In such circumstances whether the other
materials on record had any effect on the mind of the
detaining authority cannot be accepted solely on his
statement, because to admit that he alone has such a right
would be to accept that the mere ipsi dixit of the detaining
authority would be sufficient and cannot be looked into.
There is a possibility that certain materials on record
would disclose that the activities of the detenu are of a
serious nature having a nexus with the object of the Act,
namely, the
64
prevention of prejudicial acts affecting the maintenance of
supplies and services essential to the community, and having
proximity with the time when the subjective satisfaction
forming the basis of the detention order had been arrived
at. if these elements exist, then the Court would be
justified in taking the view that these must, have in-
fluenced the subjective satisfaction of the detaining
authority and the omission to indicate those materials to
the detenu would prejudice him in making an effective
representation. If so, the detention order on that account
would be illegal.
It may be that the record and bio-data of the detenu may
disclose materials which have no nexus, or proximity or are
vague or having regard to their nature or magnitude, are not
such as would have been considered by the detaining
authority as essential for his subjective satisfaction, in
which case, it will have no effect upon the validity of the
detention order. From this point of view, we have examined
the bio-data of the detenu but find that none of the
materials contained in it have any proximity or nexus with
the object of his detention, nor having regard to the nature
of the activities can we say that they have or could have
influenced the subjective satisfaction of the detaining
authority. We find from the history-sheet furnished to the
District Magistrate by the Superintendent of Police,
Midnapore that apart from the facts which constitute the
three grounds of detention specified in the detention order,
there are two sets of facts disclosed therein. One set is
in respect of police case No. 8 dated January 8, 1966, under
S. 379 I.P.C. from which it will be found that the detenu
was concerned in four other cases, three of 1970 and one of
1966, but he could not be charge-sheeted in those cases as
the eye witnesses were afraid of deposing to facts publicly
against the detenu and his equally dangerous associates.
The second set is in respect of his being bound down under
ss. 110/118 Code of Criminal Procedure for six months on
January 9, 1971. Even thereafter he was again found
concerned in four cases in 1971 each one, under s. 379
I.P.C. The Superintendent of Police states that in respect
of the above four cases thus :
“He has now become a veteran wagon breaker.
His activities are highly prejudicial to the
maintenance of supplies and services essential
to the community. People of the area are
afraid of deposing facts publicly against him
and his equally dangerous associates.”
Thereafter the Superintendent of Police gives some of the
recent instances of his activities prejudicial to the
maintenance of supplies and services essential to
the.community, which alone have been given in the three
grounds mentioned in the detention order and which were
communicated to him.
It is apparent that the instances to which we have referred
to are remote in their proximity with the object of
detention and would, if they had been stated in the grounds
or communicated’ to the detenu,
65
have been considered as remote in their proximity and on
that ground the detention would have been held invalid. The
District Magistrate, quite rightly, did not therefore rely
on those other materials, and we think he was justified in
his assertion in the affidavit that he did not do so.
In the view we have taken, the detention is valid and
accordingly we dismiss the petition.
V.P.S.
Petition dismissed-
L25ISupC,1/75
66