{"id":12863,"date":"1989-09-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1989-09-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shafiq-ahmad-vs-district-magistrate-meerut-ors-on-6-september-1989"},"modified":"2018-12-16T21:58:44","modified_gmt":"2018-12-16T16:28:44","slug":"shafiq-ahmad-vs-district-magistrate-meerut-ors-on-6-september-1989","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shafiq-ahmad-vs-district-magistrate-meerut-ors-on-6-september-1989","title":{"rendered":"Shafiq Ahmad vs District Magistrate, Meerut & Ors on 6 September, 1989"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Shafiq Ahmad vs District Magistrate, Meerut & Ors on 6 September, 1989<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1990 AIR 220, \t\t 1989 SCR Supl. (1) 56<\/div>\n
Author: S Mukharji<\/div>\n
Bench: Mukharji, Sabyasachi (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSHAFIQ AHMAD\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nDISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MEERUT & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT06\/09\/1989\n\nBENCH:\nMUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J)\nBENCH:\nMUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J)\nRAY, B.C. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1990 AIR  220\t\t  1989 SCR  Supl. (1)  56\n 1989 SCC  (4) 556\t  JT 1989 (3)\t659\n 1989 SCALE  (2)565\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1990 SC1597\t (14)\n F\t    1992 SC1900\t (16)\n\n\nACT:\n    National  Security\tAct  1980--Section  3(2)   Detention\nOrder-Validity\tof--Challenged. Delay occurred in  executing\nthe order of detention--Whether vitiates the detention.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n    In\tpursuance of an order of detention dated  15.4.1988,\npassed by the District Magistrate, Meerut, the Petitioner, a\nbachelor and having no property, was arrested on 2nd October\n1988 and detained under Section 3(2) of the National Securi-\nty  Act.  The petitioner was supplied with  the\t grounds  of\ndetention enumerating therein the' acts committed by him  on\n2nd,  3rd and 4th April 1988 and on 9.4.88 and the  provoca-\ntive  speeches\tmade by him on the occasion of\tShabberat  a\nMuslim\tfestival to the effect that Hindus had\tdeliberately\n\"sent their cow on the road\" and the \"people are silent\" and\nabout teaching \"them\" a lesson and administration's  failure\nto  fix\t a long speaker in the mosque- These  acts  and\t the\nspeeches made by the petitioner. were, in the opinion of the\ndetaining  authority,  prejudicial  to\tthe  maintenance  of\npublic\torder.\tThe representation made\t by  the  petitioner\nagainst the order of detention was rejected and the order of\nhis detention was confirmed.\n    Thereupon,\tthe petitioner has filed this Writ  Petition\nunder Article 32 of the Constitution challenging his  deten-\ntion.  The contentions of the petitioner are that  (i)\tthat\nthere was inordinate delay in arresting the petitioner which\nindicated  that\t the order of detention was not based  on  a\nbona fide and genuine belief that the action and conduct  of\nthe  petitioner were such that the same were prejudicial  to\nthe maintenance of Public Order and the so-called  \"grounds\"\nwere  merely make-belief and not genuine grounds; (ii)\tthat\nthe  grounds were not germane to the maintenance of  \"public\norder\" and (iii) that the grounds were vague and  unintelli-\ngible.\nAllowing the Writ Petition, this Court,\n     HELD:  Sub-section (2) of section 3 of the\t Act  autho-\nrises  the  Central Government or the State  Government,  if\nsatisfied  with\t respect to any person that with a  view  to\npreventing him from acting in any\n57\nmanner prejudicial to the security of the state, it is found\nnecessary, then the person can be detained. Hence there must\nbe  conduct  relevant to the formation of  the\tsatisfaction\nhaving\treasonable nexus with the actions of the  petitioner\nwhich  are prejudicial to the maintenance of  public  order.\nExistence of material relevant to the formation of satisfac-\ntion  and  having rational nexus to the\t formation  of\tthe.\nsatisfaction  that because of certain conduct \"it is  neces-\nsary\" to make an order \"detaining\" such person, are  subject\nto judicial review. [60H; 61A-B]\n    Delay,  unexplained\t and not justified, by\tthe  circum-\nstances\t and the exigencies of the situation, is  indicative\nof  the\t fact that the authorities concerned  were  not\t and\ncould  not have been satisfied that \"preventive custody\"  of\nthe  concerned\tperson\twas necessary to  prevent  him\tfrom\nacting\tin  any\t manner prejudicial to\tthe  maintenance  of\npublic\torder.\tWhether there has been\tunreasonable  delay,\ndepends\t upon  the facts and circumstances of  a  particular\nsituation. [61C-D]\n    Satisfaction  of the authorities based on  conduct\tmust\nprecede action for prevention. Satisfaction entails  belief.\nSatisfaction  and  belief are subjective. Actions  based  on\nsubjective  satisfaction  are objective\t indication  of\t the\nexistence  of the subjective satisfaction. Action  based  on\nsatisfaction  should  be with speed  commensurate  with\t the\nsituation. [61E-F]\n    If in a situation the person concerned is not  available\nor cannot be served then the mere fact that the action under\nsection\t 7  of the Act has not been taken, would  not  be  a\nground\tto say that the detention order was bad. Failure  to\ntake  action,  even if there was no scope for  action  under\nsection 7 of the Act would not be decisive or  determinative\nof the question whether there was undue delay in serving the\nOrder of detention. [62A-B]\n    The Petitioner has no property, so no property could  be\nattached  and  as the Government's case is that he  was\t not\navailable for arrest, no order under sec. 7 could have\tbeen\npossibly  made. This, however, does not salvage\t the  situa-\ntion.  The  fact is that from 15th April 1988  to  12th\t May\n1988, no attempt had been made to contact the Petitioner. No\nexplanation   has  been\t given\tfor  this.  There  is\talso\nno  explanation why from 29th September 1988 to 2nd  October\n1988,  no attempt had been made. It is however\tstated\tthat\nfrom  May  to September 1988 the \"entire police\t force\"\t was\nextremely  busy in controlling the situation. Hence, if\t the\nlaw and order was threatened and prejudiced, it was not\t the\nconduct of the petitioner but because of \"the inadequacy\" or\n\"inability\" of the police force of Meerut City to control\n58\nthe  situation. Therefore the fact is that there was  delay.\nThe  further  fact is that the delay is\t unexplained.or\t not\nwarranted  by the facts\/ situation. To shift the  blame\t for\npublic order situation and raise the bogey of the conduct of\nthe petitioner would not be proof of genuine or real  belief\nabout  the conduct of the petitioner but only raising a\t red\nherring. [62B-E]\n    The\t Court quashed the order of detention  and  directed\nthe petitioner to be set at liberty forthwith. [65B]\n    Nizamuddin\tv.  The State of West Bengal,<\/a> [1975]  2\t SCR\n593;  Bhawarlal Ganeshmalji v. State of Tamil Nadu  &  Ant.,<\/a>\n[1979] 2 SCR 633 at p. 638; Indradeo Mahato v. State of West\nBengal,<\/a>\t [1973]\t 4  SCC 4; State of Gujarat  v.\t Adam  Kasam\nBhaya,<\/a> [1982] 1\t SCR 740; Subhash Bhandari v. Distt.  Magis-\ntrate,\tLucknow & Ors., [1987] 4 SCC 685 and Kanu Biswas  v.\nState of West Bengal,<\/a> [1973] 1 SCR 546, referred to.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
    CRIMINAL  ORIGINAL\tJURISDICTION: Writ  Petition (Crimi-
\nnal) No. 200 of 1989.\n<\/p>\n
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution)
\nC.P. Mittal for the Petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
    Anil Dev Singh, Yogeshwar Prasad, Ms. Kitty Kumar Manga-
\nlam,  Ms. A Subhashini, Anil Malik and D. Bhandari  for\t the
\nRespondents.\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n    SABYASACHI\tMUKHARJI, J. This petition under Article  32
\nof  the Constitution challenges the detention of  the  peti-
\ntioner–a  ,detenu, under s. 3(2) of the  National  Security
\nAct, 1980 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The petitioner  is
\na  bachelor.  He does not own any property.  The  order\t for
\ndetention  under s. 3(2) of the Act was passed on April\t 15,
\n1988  by the District Magistrate, Meerut. In the grounds  of
\ndetention  it  is stated that on the night of  2\/3rd  April,
\n1988 which was an occasion of “Shabberat” festival, a muslim
\nfestival,  the religious celebration was going on  at  Gudfi
\nChaupala.  At about 11 p.m. in the night on that day, a\t cow
\nbelonging  to  the muslims of Ismail Nagar came\t from  Sabun
\nGaran  towards\tChaupal Gudri and was going  towards  Ismail
\nNagar and, according to the order of detention, ‘some  unde-
\nsirable elements’
\n59<\/span>
\npresent\t there did not allow the cow to go on the right\t way
\nand .she again came towards Chaupala Gudri, and was made  to
\nrun  avoiding  the crowd towards Nakaar Chian but  near\t the
\nshop  of Haj Dhola, ‘some undesirable elements’ stopped\t the
\ncow and poked a wood piece on her back. Due to this the\t cow
\nstarted pumping and himping and ran inside the\tcelebration.
\nIt is stated that at this the petitioner came to the  stage,
\ngot  excited and spread the rumor that “the police  had\t not
\nmade any arrangements”. It was stated that the cow  belonged
\nto  the\t Hindus and had been deliberately  sent\t inside\t the
\nfestival and “other provoking” things. Due to the aforesaid,
\nthe people started running and communal feelings got around.
\nIt is stated in the order of detention that in this way\t the
\npetitioner had committed an act which was prejudicial to the
\nmaintenance  of\t public order. Again on 9th April,  1988  at
\nabout 9 p.m. near Transformer at Gudri Chaupala P.S.  Kotwa-
\nli,  the petitioner is alleged to have “provoked  some\tper-
\nsons”  of the muslim community by saying that “the  adminis-
\ntration even now has not allowed to get a loud speaker fixed
\nhere  and all of you are silent, get a loud speaker  on\t the
\nMosque\tand we will see. I am with you.” It is\talso  stated
\nthat  the petitioner had also said that on the\toccasion  of
\nShabberat  these Hindus had deliberately “sent their cow  on
\nthe road” for their festive celebrations and the “people are
\nsilent”. He had also said about teaching “them” a lesson.
\n    It\twas  stated  that due to the  “aforesaid  bad  act”,
\ncommunal  feelings got aroused in the Meerut City  and\tfear
\nand  terror got spread, and in this way the  petitioner\t had
\ndone an act which was “prejudicial to maintenance of  public
\nlaw and order”. In the aforesaid, it was stated that for the
\nreasons mentioned hereinbefore, there was possibility of the
\npetitioner  doing  such an act, and therefore  in  order  to
\nrestrain  the petitioner from doing so, it is  necessary  to
\ndetain\thim. Accordingly, the order was passed\twith  conse-
\nquential directions and information.\n<\/p>\n
    As mentioned hereinbefore, the alleged incidents were on
\n2\/3\/4th April, 1988 as well as 9th April, 1988. The order of
\ndetention (hereinafter referred to ‘the order’) was made  on
\n15th  April, 1988. The petitioner was arrested\tpursuant  to
\nthe  said order on 2nd October, 1988. There was\t representa-
\ntion  but the same was rejected and the order  of  detention
\nwas confirmed.\n<\/p>\n
    In this petition various grounds have been taken  before
\nthis  Court  challenging the order under Article 32  of\t the
\nConstitution.  Mr.  C.P.  Mittal, learned  counsel  for\t the
\npetitioner, however, urged
\n60<\/span>
\nbefore\tus  three grounds upon which he contended  that\t the
\nsaid order be quashed or set aside. It was submitted by\t Mr.
\nMittal\tthat  there was inordinate delay  in  arresting\t the
\npetitioner  pursuant to the order, which indicated that\t the
\norder  was not based on a bona fide and genuine belief\tthat
\nthe  action or conduct of the petitioner were such that\t the
\nsame were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and
\nthat  preventive detention of the petitioner  was  necessary
\nfor preventing him from such conduct. He .further  submitted
\nthat  delay in the circumstances of this case  in  arresting
\nthe petitioner and or in acting pursuant to the order  indi-
\ncated  that the “so-called grounds” were merely\t make-belief
\nand  not genuine grounds upon which the satisfaction of\t the
\nauthority concerned was based.\n<\/p>\n
    In\tanswer to this contention, on behalf of\t the  Distt.
\nMagistrate, Meerut, by an affidavit affirmed on 28th August,
\n1989  and filed in these proceedings, stated that  raids  on
\nthe petitioner’s premises for the service of the order dated
\n15.4.1988  were\t conducted. It was further stated  that\t the
\nrespondent  authorities\t had made all efforts to  serve\t the
\norder  on the petitioner and for this purpose the  house  of
\nthe petitioner was raided on several occasions and a  refer-
\nence  was made to the general diary report, details  whereof
\nwere  extracted in the affidavit. The details indicate\tthat
\nin  respect of the order dated 15.4.1988 the first raid\t was
\nmade  in  the  house of the petitioner on  12th\t May,  1988,
\nfollowed by eight other attempts up to the end of May,\t1988
\nto  arrest  the petitioner but he was not  available.  There
\nwas,  however, no attempt in the months of June,  July,\t Au-
\ngust’ 88 but on 23, 25 & 29th September, 1988 three attempts
\nwere  made and as such, it was stated on behalf of  the\t re-
\nspondents, the order could not be served before 2nd October,
\n1988.  According to the District Magistrate, the  respondent
\nauthorities  did not leave any stone unturned to arrest\t the
\npetitioner.  It was, however, stated that from May, 1988  to
\nSeptember,  1988 the entire police force of Meerut City\t was
\nextremely  busy in maintaining law and order, but the  peti-
\ntioner was all along absconding in order to avoid the  serv-
\nice of the order. The District Magistrate has further stated
\nthat  during  the period from May to September,\t 1988  great
\ncommunal  tension  was prevailing in the Meerut City  and  a
\nlarge number of people were arrested on account thereof. The
\nquestion  that requires consideration is, whether there\t was
\nin  ordinary delay. The detention under the Act is  for\t the
\npurpose\t of  preventing persons from acting  in\t any  manner
\nprejudicial  to the maintenance of public order.  Subsection
\n(2) of section 3 of the Act authorises the Central Govt.  or
\nthe  State  Govt., if satisfied with respect to\t any  person
\nthat with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner
\nprejudicial to the security of
\n61<\/span>
\nthe  State,  it is found necessary then the  person  can  be
\ndetained.  Hence,  there  must be conduct  relevant  to\t the
\nformation  of the satisfaction having reasonable nexus\twith
\nthe  action of the petitioner which are prejudicial  to\t the
\nmaintenance of public order. Existence of materials relevant
\nto  the\t formation of the satisfaction and  having  rational
\nnexus  to the formation of the satisfaction that because  of
\ncertain conduct “it is necessary” to make an order  “detain-
\ning”  such person, are subject to judicial  review.  Counsel
\nfor the petitioner contends that in the aforesaid facts\t and
\nthe circumstances if the conduct of the petitioner was\tsuch
\nthat  it  required preventive detention,  not  any  punitive
\naction, for the purpose of “preventing” the person concerned
\nfrom  doing  things or indulging in  activities\t which\twill
\njeopardise,  hamper  or affect maintenance of  public  order
\nthen  there  must  be action in pursuance of  the  order  of
\ndetention  with\t promptitude.  Delay,  unexplained  and\t not
\njustified,  by the circumstances and the exigencies  of\t the
\nsituation,  is indicative of the fact that  the\t authorities
\nconcerned  were\t not or could not have been  satisfied\tthat
\n“preventive  custody” of the person concerned was  necessary
\nto prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to\t the
\nmaintenance  of public order. Whether there has been  unrea-
\nsonable delay, depends upon the facts and the  circumstances
\nof a particular situation. Preventive detention is a serious
\ninroad\tinto the freedom of individuals.  Reasons,  purposes
\nand the manner of such detention must, therefore, be subject
\nto  closest scrutiny and examination by the courts.  In\t the
\ninterest of public order, for the greater good of the commu-
\nnity,  it  becomes imperative for the society  to  detain  a
\nperson in order to prevent him and not merely to punish\t him
\nfrom the threatened or contemplated or anticipated course of
\naction.\t Satisfaction  of the authorities based\t on  conduct
\nmust  precede  action for prevention.  Satisfaction  entails
\nbelief.\t Satisfaction  and belief  are\tsubjective.  Actions
\nbased on subjective satisfaction are objective indication of
\nthe  existence of the subjective satisfaction. Action  based
\non  satisfaction should be with speed commensurate with\t the
\nsituation. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in this
\ncase  there was no material adduced on behalf of  the  Govt.
\nindicating  that  the petitioner was  “absconding”.  It\t was
\nurged that there are no material at all to indicate that the
\npetitioner  was\t evading arrest or was\tabsconding.  It\t was
\nsubmitted that s. 7 of the Act gave power to the authorities
\nto  take action in case the persons were absconding  and  in
\ncase the order of detention cannot be executed. It is stated
\nthat in this case no warrant under s. 7 of the Act has\tbeen
\nissued\tin respect of his property or person. Hence, it\t was
\ncontended  that the respondent was not justified in  raising
\nthe plea that the petitioner was absconding. We are,  howev-
\ner- unable to accept this contention. If in a situation the
\n62<\/span>
\nperson\tconcerned is not available or cannot be served\tthen
\nthe mere fact that the action under s. 7 of the Act has\t not
\nbeen taken, would not be a ground to say that the  detention
\norder was bad. Failure to take action, even if there was  no
\nscope  for action under s. 7 of the Act, would not be  deci-
\nsive  or  determinative of the question\t whether  there\t was
\nundue delay in serving the order of detention.\tFurthermore,
\nin  the\t facts of this case, as has been  contended  by\t the
\nGovernment,  the  petitioner has no  property,\tno  property
\ncould  be attached and as the Govt. ‘s case is that  he\t was
\nnot  available\tfor arrest, no order under s. 7\t could\thave
\nbeen  possibly\tmade. This, however, does  not\tsalvage\t the
\nsituation.  The fact is that from 15th April, 1988  to\t12th
\nMay, 1988 no attempt had been made to contact or arrest\t the
\npetitioner. No explanation has been given for this. There is
\nalso  no  explanation why from 29th September, 1988  to\t 2nd
\nOctober,  1988\tno attempt had been made.  It  is,  however,
\nstated\tthat from May to September, 1988 the ‘entire  police
\nforce’\twas  extremely busy in\tcontrolling  the  situation.
\nHence,\tif the law and order was threatened and\t prejudiced,
\nit was not the conduct of the petitioner but because of ‘the
\ninadequacy’ or ‘inability of the police force of Meerut City
\nto control the situation. Therefore, the fact is that  there
\nwas delay. The further fact is that the delay is unexplained
\nor not warranted by the facts situation.\n<\/p>\n
    To shift the blame for public order situation and  raise
\nthe  bogey  of the conduct of the petitioner  would  not  be
\nproof  of  genuine or real belief about the conduct  of\t the
\npetitioner but only raising a red herring. This question was
\nexamined  by this Court in Nizamuddin v. The State  of\tWest
\nBengal,<\/a> [1975] 2 SCR 593. The question involved therein\t was
\nunder s. 3(2) of the Internal Security Act, 1971. There\t was
\ndelay of about two and a half months in detaining the  peti-
\ntioner\tpursuant  to the order of detention  and  the  Court
\nconsidered  that  unless the delay  was\t satisfactorily\t ex-
\nplained,  it would throw considerable doubt on the  genuine-
\nness of the subjective satisfaction of the Distt. Magistrate
\nrecited in the order of detention. Mr. Justice Bhagwati,  as
\nthe  learned Chief Justice then was, speaking for the  Court
\nobserved at page 595 of the report that it will be  reasona-
\nble  to assume that if the Distt. Magistrate was really\t and
\ngenuinely satisfied after proper application of mind to\t the
\nmaterials  before  him that it was necessary to\t detain\t the
\npetitioner  with a view to preventing him from acting  in  a
\nprejudicial manner, he would have acted with greater  promp-
\ntitude in securing the arrest of the petitioner\t immediately
\nafter invoking of the order of detention, and the petitioner
\nwould  not have been allowed to remain at large for  such  a
\nlong period of time to carry on his nefarious activities. It
\nis, however, not the law that whenever there is some delay
\n63<\/span>
\nin  arresting the subjective satisfaction of  the  detaining
\nauthority must be held to be not genuine or colourable. Each
\ncase  must  depend  on its own peculiar\t facts\tand  circum-
\nstances. In this case, from the facts and the  circumstances
\nset  out  hereinbefore we find no reasonable  or  acceptable
\nexplanation  for the delay. In a situation of communal\tten-
\nsion  prompt  action is imperative. It\tis,  therefore,\t not
\npossible  for this Court to be satisfied that  the  District
\nMagistrate  had applied his mind and arrived at\t “real”\t and
\n“genuine”  subjective satisfaction that it was necessary  to
\ndetain the petitioner to “prevent” him from wrong doing. The
\ncondition  precedent,  therefore, was not  present.  But  as
\nJustice\t Chinnappa Reddy explained in Bhawarlal\t Ganeshmalji
\nv. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr.,<\/a> [1979] 2 SCR 633 at page\t 638
\nthat  there  must be ‘live and proximate link’\tbetween\t the
\ngrounds of detention alleged by the detaining authority\t and
\nthe avowed purpose of detention, and in appropriate cases it
\nis possible to assume that the link is ‘snapped’ if there is
\na  long and unexplained delay between the date of the  order
\nof  detention  and the arrest of the  detenu.  Mr  Yogeshwar
\nPrasad,\t learned  counsel  for the State of  U.P.  drew\t our
\nattention  to the decision of this Court in Indradeo  Mahato
\nv.  State  of West Bengal,<\/a> [1973] 4 SCC 4. That was  also  a
\ncase  of arrest under the Maintenance of  Internal  Security
\nAct, 1971. It was urged in that case that there was no\treal
\nor genuine apprehension that the petitioner there was likely
\nto act in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of  public
\norder.\tThis Court in the facts of that case, was unable  to
\naccept the said contention. The Court held that mere failure
\nto  take recourse to ss. 87 & 88 of the\t Criminal  Procedure
\nCode would be a warrant to believe that the delay was unrea-
\nsonable.  Whether the delay was unreasonable depends on\t the
\nfacts and the circumstances of each case. We are  satisfied,
\nin view of the facts and circumstances of the case mentioned
\nbefore,\t that by the conduct of the respondent\tauthorities,
\nthere was undue delay, delay not commensurate with the facts
\nsituation  in this case. the conduct as\t aforesaid  betrayed
\nthat  there  was no real and genuine apprehension  that\t the
\npetitioner  was likely to act in any manner  prejudicial  to
\npublic order. The order, therefore, is bad and must go.
\n    The next ground urged in support of this application was
\nthat  the grounds mentioned were not germane to\t maintenance
\nof ‘public order’. It was submitted that the petitioner\t has
\nonly  alleged  inefficiency or incompetency  of\t the  police
\neither\tin providing a loud speaker or in ensuring that\t the
\ncows do not enter into or within the arena of muslim  festi-
\nvals. It was submitted that the criticism of the administra-
\ntion  is not endangering public order. Mr. Mittal  submitted
\nthat it was not a question of law and order but public order
\nthat is important in
\n64<\/span>
\nthis case. What the petitioner has alleged to have done\t may
\nhave some relevancy to the purpose of securing law and order
\nbut there cannot be any rational nexus with the satisfaction
\nregarding  the maintenancy of public order. By\tthe  conduct
\nalleged or the saying attributed as mentioned above,  public
\norder  was  not\t prejudiced. Criticism of  Police  does\t not
\nprejudice public order, it is said. The Court has to  ensure
\nthat the order of detention is based on materials before it.
\nIf  it is found that the order passed by the  detaining\t au-
\nthority\t was on materials on record, the Court\tcan  examine
\nthe record only for the purpose of seeing whether the  order
\nof detention was based on no material or whether the materi-
\nals have rational nexus with satisfaction that public  order
\nwas prejudiced. Beyond this, the Court is not concerned. See
\nthe  observations  of  The State of Gujarat  v.\t Adam  Kasam
\nBhaya,<\/a> [1982] 1 SCR 740. The difference between public order
\nand  law and order is a matter of degree. If the  morale  of
\nthe  police force or of the people is shaken by making\tthem
\nlose their faith in the law enforcing machinery of the State
\nthen prejudice is occasioned to maintenance of public order.
\nSuch attempts or actions which undermine the public faith in
\nthe police administration at a time when tensions are  high,
\naffects maintenance of public order and as such\t conduct  is
\nprejudicial.  See in this connection Indradeo Mahato’s\tcase
\n(supra),  Subhash Bhandari v. Distt. Magistrate,  Lucknow  &
\nOrs.,<\/a>  [1987]  4 SCC 685 and Kanu Biswas v.  State  of\tWest
\nBengal,<\/a> [1973] 1 SCR 546. Therefore, we are unable to accept
\nthe  contention that the grounds were not relevant  for\t the
\norder  of  detention under the Act. This contention  of\t Mr.
\nMittal must, therefore, fail.\n<\/p>\n
    The last contention was that the grounds mentioned\twere
\nvague  and unintelligible. It was not stated, it was  urged,
\nthat as to what the petitioner said, to whom the rumour\t was
\nspread as mentioned in ground No. 1 and what “other  provok-
\ning  things” the petitioner is alleged to have said  as\t al-
\nleged  in the grounds mentioned before. It was urged, it  is
\nfurther not clear as to whom the petitioner wanted to  teach
\na  lesson. It has to be borne in mind that if more than\t one
\ngrounds are stated in the grounds then the fact that one  of
\nthe grounds is bad, would not alter order of detention after
\nthe amendment of the Act in 1984 provided the other  grounds
\nwere valid. But quite apart from the same, it appears to  us
\nthat  none  of the grounds were vague. The grounds  must  be
\nunderstood in the light of the background and the context of
\nthe facts. It was quite clear what the detaining authorities
\nwere trying to convey was that the petitioner stated  things
\nof the nature and it was to teach Hindus a lesson. Hence, it
\nwas meant to create communal tension. We find no irrelevancy
\nor vagueness in the
\n65<\/span>
\ngrounds. On this ground the challenge cannot be sustained.
\n    However, in the view taken by us on the first ground the
\norder  of detention must be quashed and set aside. We  order
\naccordingly. Let the petitioner be set at liberty  forthwith
\nunless he is required for any other offence under any  other
\nAct. The application is disposed of accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
Y.  Lal\t\t\t\t\t\t    Petition\nallowed.\n66<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Shafiq Ahmad vs District Magistrate, Meerut & Ors on 6 September, 1989 Equivalent citations: 1990 AIR 220, 1989 SCR Supl. (1) 56 Author: S Mukharji Bench: Mukharji, Sabyasachi (J) PETITIONER: SHAFIQ AHMAD Vs. RESPONDENT: DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MEERUT & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT06\/09\/1989 BENCH: MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J) BENCH: MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J) RAY, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-12863","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nShafiq Ahmad vs District Magistrate, Meerut & Ors on 6 September, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shafiq-ahmad-vs-district-magistrate-meerut-ors-on-6-september-1989\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shafiq Ahmad vs District Magistrate, Meerut & Ors on 6 September, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shafiq-ahmad-vs-district-magistrate-meerut-ors-on-6-september-1989\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1989-09-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-12-16T16:28:44+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"21 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shafiq-ahmad-vs-district-magistrate-meerut-ors-on-6-september-1989#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shafiq-ahmad-vs-district-magistrate-meerut-ors-on-6-september-1989\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shafiq Ahmad vs District Magistrate, Meerut & Ors on 6 September, 1989\",\"datePublished\":\"1989-09-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-16T16:28:44+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shafiq-ahmad-vs-district-magistrate-meerut-ors-on-6-september-1989\"},\"wordCount\":3185,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shafiq-ahmad-vs-district-magistrate-meerut-ors-on-6-september-1989#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shafiq-ahmad-vs-district-magistrate-meerut-ors-on-6-september-1989\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shafiq-ahmad-vs-district-magistrate-meerut-ors-on-6-september-1989\",\"name\":\"Shafiq Ahmad vs District Magistrate, Meerut & Ors on 6 September, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1989-09-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-16T16:28:44+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shafiq-ahmad-vs-district-magistrate-meerut-ors-on-6-september-1989#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shafiq-ahmad-vs-district-magistrate-meerut-ors-on-6-september-1989\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shafiq-ahmad-vs-district-magistrate-meerut-ors-on-6-september-1989#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shafiq Ahmad vs District Magistrate, Meerut & Ors on 6 September, 1989\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Shafiq Ahmad vs District Magistrate, Meerut & Ors on 6 September, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shafiq-ahmad-vs-district-magistrate-meerut-ors-on-6-september-1989","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shafiq Ahmad vs District Magistrate, Meerut & Ors on 6 September, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shafiq-ahmad-vs-district-magistrate-meerut-ors-on-6-september-1989","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1989-09-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-12-16T16:28:44+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"21 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shafiq-ahmad-vs-district-magistrate-meerut-ors-on-6-september-1989#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shafiq-ahmad-vs-district-magistrate-meerut-ors-on-6-september-1989"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shafiq Ahmad vs District Magistrate, Meerut & Ors on 6 September, 1989","datePublished":"1989-09-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-16T16:28:44+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shafiq-ahmad-vs-district-magistrate-meerut-ors-on-6-september-1989"},"wordCount":3185,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shafiq-ahmad-vs-district-magistrate-meerut-ors-on-6-september-1989#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shafiq-ahmad-vs-district-magistrate-meerut-ors-on-6-september-1989","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shafiq-ahmad-vs-district-magistrate-meerut-ors-on-6-september-1989","name":"Shafiq Ahmad vs District Magistrate, Meerut & Ors on 6 September, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1989-09-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-16T16:28:44+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shafiq-ahmad-vs-district-magistrate-meerut-ors-on-6-september-1989#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shafiq-ahmad-vs-district-magistrate-meerut-ors-on-6-september-1989"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shafiq-ahmad-vs-district-magistrate-meerut-ors-on-6-september-1989#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shafiq Ahmad vs District Magistrate, Meerut & Ors on 6 September, 1989"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12863","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=12863"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12863\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=12863"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=12863"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=12863"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}