{"id":181687,"date":"1974-02-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1974-02-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-alam-vs-state-of-west-bengal-on-14-february-1974"},"modified":"2018-07-02T04:40:53","modified_gmt":"2018-07-01T23:10:53","slug":"mohd-alam-vs-state-of-west-bengal-on-14-february-1974","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-alam-vs-state-of-west-bengal-on-14-february-1974","title":{"rendered":"Mohd. Alam vs State Of West Bengal on 14 February, 1974"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Mohd. Alam vs State Of West Bengal on 14 February, 1974<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1974 AIR 917, \t\t 1974 SCR (3) 379<\/div>\n
Author: R S Sarkaria<\/div>\n
Bench: Sarkaria, Ranjit Singh<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nMOHD.  ALAM\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF WEST BENGAL\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT14\/02\/1974\n\nBENCH:\nSARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH\nBENCH:\nSARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH\nKRISHNAIYER, V.R.\n\nCITATION:\n 1974 AIR  917\t\t  1974 SCR  (3) 379\n 1974 SCC  (4) 463\n CITATOR INFO :\n RF\t    1976 SC1207\t (560)\n RF\t    1980 SC1983\t (4)\n RF\t    1987 SC1977\t (4)\n R\t    1990 SC1597\t (19)\n\n\nACT:\nPrevention   detention--'Services   and\t Supplies'   in\t  s.\n3(1)(a)(iii)  of the Maintenance of Internal  Security\tAct,\n1971, Scope of--Detention until the expiry of the Defence of\nIndia\tAct.  if  valid--Counter-affidavit  on\t behalf\t  of\nState--Who   should  file--Duty\t to   communicate   material\nparticulars to the detenu.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe petitioner was detained by an order passed under s. 3(2)\nof  the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971,  with  a\nview  to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial  to\nthe  maintenance of supplies and services essential  to\t the\ncommunity.   The  detention  order  was\t confirmed  by\t the\nGovernment  and the Government directed that  the  detention\nshould\tcontinue till the expiration of 12 months  from\t the\ndate  of detention or until the expiry of Defence  of  India\nAct,  1971, whichever is later.\t Two instances of thefts  of\ncopper\t wire  were  given  in\tthe  grounds  of   detention\ncommunicated  to  the detenu.  He alleged that he  had\tbeen\nwrongfully  arrested and detained for 22 days in the  Police\nStation and that thereafter the detention order was  foisted\non  him\t with  false and concocted  charges.   The  counter-\naffidavit  was\tfiled, not by the  District  Magistrate\t who\npassed the order of detention; but by a Deputy Secretary  in\nthe  Secretariat who had not personally dealt with the\tcase\nof  the detenu, and it stated that from records it  appeared\nthat  the petitioner was a \"veteran copper  wire  criminal\".\nIn  a petition for the issue of a writ of habeas  corpus  it\nwas  contended that : (1 ) theft of telecommunication  wires\nor cables, may disrupt 'services' essential to the community\nbut  had no connection with the maintenance  of\t 'supplies',\nand  since no particulars whatever in relation\tto  supplies\nwere  communicated to the petitioner the ground with  regard\nto  'supplies'\tis  irrelevant\tand  vague  and\t hence\t the\ndetention   order  was\tviolative  of  Art.  22(5)  of\t the\nConstitution; (2) the period of detention under the impugned\norder was indefinite and uncertain and infringed Art.  22(7)\n(b); (3) the counter-affidavit filed was not by the  officer\nwho  was satisfied about the necessity of detention and\t was\ninsufficient to rebut the allegations of the petitioner that\nhis  detention was on false grounds with  ulterior  motives;\nand (4) the grounds of detention conveyed to the  petitioner\nwere  false, vague and deficient in material particulars  in\nthat  the  'reliable  information' showing  that  he  was  a\n\"veteran copper wire criminal\" was not communicated to him.\nHELD  : (1 ) The expression 'supplies and services' in s.  3\n(1) (a) (iii) of the Act is to be construed pragmatically in\nthe  context  of  each case with due stress  on\t the  phrase\n'essential  to the life of the community'.  In a  few  cases\nthese  expressions  may carry a meaning distinct  from\teach\nother.\t But  in most cases the same  activity\tmay  equally\naffect\tsupplies  and  services and the\t connotations  of  I\nsupplies' and 'services' may coincide or telescope into each\nother.\t Such  will be the case where there is\tlarge  scale\ntheft  of copper wire by cutting and removing the same\tfrom\nthe power mains or telecommunication installations or under-\nground cables. [382 E-G]\nJagdish\t Prasad v. State of Bihar Writ Petition No. 1972  of\n1973, followed Strouds' Judicial Dictionary 3rd Edn. p. 2939\nand  Blackpool\tCorporation v. Locker [1948]  1,  K.B.\t349;\nreferred to.\n(2)  The period of detention fixed under the impugned orders\ndoes  not  infringe  the mandate of Art. 22(7)\t(b)  of\t the\nConstitution. [383 G]\nFagu  Shah etc. etc. v. State of West Bengal Writ  Petitions\nNos.  41,  106,\t 113, 214, 441 and 621 of  1973\t decided  on\n20-12-1973, followed.\n(3)  The proper person to file the counter-affidavit is\t the\nDistrict  Magistrate who had passed the order  of  detention\nunder  s. 3 of the Act, and, if for some good reason  he  is\nnot  available\tthe  affidavit\tof  a  senior  officer\t who\npersonally  dealt  with\t the  case  of\tthe  detenu  in\t the\nSecretariat or had put it to the minister\n380\nfor  orders should have been filed.  These obligations\tstem\nfrom  the  well-settled principle that once a Rule  Nisi  is\nissued on a habeas corpus motion by the Court the onus is on\nthe  State to show that the liberty of the detenu  has\tbeen\ntaken  away in accordance with the procedure established  by\nlaw  and that the safeguards provided in Art. 22 and in\t the\nAct  have  not been transgressed or bypassed.  But  for\t the\nfact that the allegations of mala fides in the affidavit  of\nthe  petitioner are imprecise and deficient  in\t particulars\nthe  omission  to  furnish the\taffidavit  of  the  District\nMagistrate might have been fatal to the impugned order.\nShaik  Hanif v. State of West Bengal Writ Petition No.\t1679\nof 1973 followed. [384 G-385 C; 386 A-B]\n(4)  All the information received by the District Magistrate\nand the Government about repeated criminal activities-of the\ndetenu\thad contributed towards the subjective\tsatisfaction\nof  the detaining authority.  But for the detenu  being,  in\nthe  opinion  of  the  detaining  authority  a\t'veteran  or\nhabitual copper wire criminal' the District Magistrate might\nnot  have  taken the impugned action.  But,  admittedly\t the\nwhole  of  this material or reliable information  about\t the\nantisocial and prejudicial activities of the detenu on which\nthe detention order was based, was not communicated to\thim.\nThe non-communication of that material was violative of Art.\n22(5)  of the Constitution and the Act, inasmuch as  it\t did\nnot  intimate to the detenu the full grounds or material  to\nenable him to make-an effective representation.\t Omission to\ncommunicate this material to the detenu must have  seriously\nprejudiced  him\t in exercising his constitutional  right  of\nmaking\t an  effective\trepresentation\tand  therefore\t the\ndetention was illegal. [386 C-F; 387D]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petitions Nos. 1678 and 1855 of
\n1973.\n<\/p>\n
Under Art. 32 of the Constitution for issue of a writ in the
\nnature of habeas corpus.\n<\/p>\n
O.   P. Malviya, for the petitioners (amicus curiae)
\nG.   S. Chatterjee, for the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nSARKARIA,  J. As similar questions of fact and law arise  in
\nthese  two petitions under Article 32 of  the  Construction,
\nthey will be disposed of by this common judgment.
\nPetitioner in Writ Petition No. 1678 of 1973 is in detention
\nsince  January\t15,  1972 in pursuance\tof  an\torder  dated
\nJanuary\t 14, 1972, passed under s. 3 (2) of the\t Maintenance
\nof  Internal Security Act, 1971 (for short, the Act) by\t the
\nDistrict  Magistrate,  Burdwan.\t  The  detention  order\t  as
\nconfirmed  by the Government on April 12, 1972 under  S.  12
\n(1)  of the Act, directs that the detention  “will  continue
\ntin  the  expiration  of  12 months from  the  date  of\t his
\ndetention or until the expiry of Defence of India Act,\t1971
\nwhichever is later.”\n<\/p>\n
In  response  to the Rule Nisi issued by  this\tCourt,\tShri
\nSukumar\t Sen, Deputy Secretary, Home  (Special)\t Department,
\nGovernment of West Bengal filed a counter-affidavit in\tpara
\n4 of which it is averred:\n<\/p>\n
“It  appears from the records that after receiving  reliable
\ninformation relating to the illegal anti-social and prejudi-
\ncial   activities  of  the   above-named   detenu-petitioner
\nrelating  to  the  maintenance\tof  Supplies  and   Services
\nessential to the
\n381<\/span>
\ncommunity,  the said District Magistrate of  Burdwan  passed
\norder  of detention against him under the provisions of\t the
\nsaid Act.”\n<\/p>\n
In  para 7 of the counter, it is said that “it appears\tfrom
\nthe records, that the detenu-petitioner is a veteran  copper
\nwire  criminal.” Two instances of thefts of copper  wire  or
\ncable used for telecommunication services, which took  place
\non  December  19,  1971\t and December  22,  1971,  are\talso
\nmentioned.\n<\/p>\n
The  grounds of detention that had been communicated to\t the
\ndetenu, read as under
\n“(1) That on 19-12–1971 at about 00-30 hrs.  You  alongwith
\nyour  associates including (1) Md.  Kasim son of Md.  Mandal
\nof Kashi Mohalla, P. S. Asansol, Dist.\tBurdwan\t  (2)  Hyder
\nAli  son of Bachchu Md. of Talpukuria, P. S. Asansol,  Dist.
\nBurdwan,  took\taway 40 kgs. underground copper\t wire  cable
\nused for the purpose of tele-communication service from\t St.
\nPatric School compound, P. S. Asansol, Dist.  Burdwan.\tAs a
\nresult\tof  this theft important  telecommunication  service
\nbetween\t Panagarh  Army\t Base Camp  and\t Patna\twas  totally
\ndisrupted for long 6 hours causing much inconvenience to the
\npeople.\n<\/p>\n
(2)  That  between 28.30 hrs. on 22-12-71 and 00.30 hrs.  on
\n23-12-71  you along with your associates including  (1)\t Md.
\nKasim son of Md.  Mandal of Kasimohalla P. S. Asansol, Dist.
\nBurdwan (2) Hyder All, son of Bachcha Md. of Talpukuria,  P.
\nS.  Asansol,  Dist.  Burdwan took away 80  kgs.\t underground
\ncopper wire cable used for the purpose of  telecommunication
\nservice\t from  St. Patric School compound,  P.\tS.  Asansol,
\nDist.\tBurdwan.   By your act\timportant  telecommunication
\nservice\t Panagarh  between  Army Base  Camp  and  Patna\t was
\ntotally disrupted for long 8 hours to the sufferings of\t the
\npeople.”  Mr.  Malviya,\t who assisted the  Court  as  amicus
\ncuriae has canvassed these contentions :\n<\/p>\n
(i)  The  impugned order says that the petitioner  has\tbeen
\ndetained  “with\t a view to preventing him from acting  in  a
\nmanner\tprejudicial  to\t the  maintenance  of  Supplies\t and
\nServices   essential   to   the\t  community”.\t Theft\t  of
\ntelecommunication  wire\t or cables, may\t disrupt  ‘services’
\nessential  to the community, but it has no  connection\twith
\nthe  maintenance  of ‘supplies’.  In s. 3(1) (a)  (iii)\t the
\nconjunction “and” is to be read as “or”, and “supplies”\t and
\n“services”  disjunctively, being two different and  distinct
\nmatters.   The\tground\twith regard to\t“supplies”  is\tthus
\nirrelevant  and vague and since no particulars\twhatever  of
\nthis  ground were communicated to the detenu, the  detention
\norder  was  violative  of  cl. (5)  of\tArticle\t 22  of\t the
\nConstitution;\n<\/p>\n
54Sup CI\/74
\n382<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
(ii) The period of detention fixed under the impugned  order
\nis indefinite and uncertain inasmuch as it has been made co-
\nextensive with another indefinite and uncertain period viz.,
\nthe  life of the Defence of India Act, 1971.  In  this\tway,
\nthe  impugned  order  indirectly infringes  the\t mandate  of
\nArticle 22 (7) (b) of the Constitution;\n<\/p>\n
(iii)\t  The District Magistrate who had passed the  deten-
\ntion  order,  has not furnished his affidavit, nor  has\t any
\nsatisfactory  explanation  been given as to why he  has\t not
\ndone so.  The stereotyped affidavit of the Deputy  Secretary
\nwho did not personally deal with the case of the detenu,  at
\nany level, is not sufficient to rebut the allegations of the
\npetitioner   that  his\tdetention  has\tbeen   effected\t  on
\n“totally false” grounds, with “ulterior motives;”\n<\/p>\n
(iv) The  grounds  of detention conveyed to  the  petitioner
\nwere  false,  vague and deficient in  material\tparticulars.
\nAll  the material or the “reliable information” relating  to
\nthe   “anti-social   and  prejudicial  activities   of\t the
\npetitioner”,   referred\t  to  in  the\tDeputy\t Secretary’s
\naffidavit, showing how the petitioner was a “veteran  copper
\nwire   criminal”,  on  the  basis  of  which  the   District
\nMagistrate\/the Government was satisfied about the  necessity
\nof  the\t impugned  detention, was not  communicated  to\t the
\ndetenu\twho,  in consequence, was deprived of his  right  to
\nmake an effective representation.\n<\/p>\n
We  will deal with the contentions ad seriatum.\t  Contention
\n(1)   does  not\t appear\t to  be\t tenable.   The\t  expression
\n“Supplies”  and “Services” in s. 3 (1) (a) (iii) of the\t Act
\nare  to\t be construed pragmatically in the context  of\teach
\ncase, with due stress on the phrase ” essential to the\tlife
\nof  the community”.  In a few cases, these  expressions\t may
\ncarry a meaning distinct and different from each other.\t For
\nexample,  a  sweepers’\tstrike\tmay  seriously\tdisrupt\t the
\n“services”  essential to the community, but no\tquestion  of
\ndisrupting  “supplies”\tarises,\t in such a  case.   In\tmost
\ncases,\t where,\t the  same  activity  may   equally   affect
\n“supplies”  and “services”, the connotations  of  “Supplies”
\nand  “services”\t may coincide or telescope into\t each  other
\nSuch  will be the case where there is large scale  theft  of
\ncopper wire by cutting and removing the same from the  power
\nmains  or  telecommunication  installations  or\t underground
\ncables.\n<\/p>\n
According to Strouds’ Judicial Dictionary 3rd Edn. p.  2939,
\n“to supply” means to “pass anything from one who has it\t to,
\nthose\twho   want   it”.    Construed\t in   this    sense,
\n“telecommunication” is both a “supply” and a “service”.\t  So
\nare  the copper wires or mains through which the  supply  is
\nmade  and  service  conducted.\t The  same  is\ttrue   about
\nelectricity, water, light, fuel or other commodity essential
\nfor  the life of the community and the medium or  the  mains
\nessential for their
\n383<\/span>
\nmaintenance.   In  the\tcontext of  the\t acute\tshortage  of
\nessential  commodities,\t many other things such\t as  ‘food’,
\n‘copper’,   ‘coal’  etc.  may  partake\tthe   character\t  of
\n“supplies”  as\twell  as  “services”.\tThus  in   Blackpool
\nCorporation v. Locker(1), it was held that the provisions of
\nhousing accommodation was within the ambit of “supplies\t and
\nservices”  in  Regulation  51(1) of  the  Defence  (General)
\nRegulation 1939.\n<\/p>\n
In  Jagdish Prasad v. State of Bihar(2), this Court had\t the
\noccasion   to  consider\t the  meaning  of   “Supplies”\t and
\n“Services”  in\tthis statutory provision in the\t context  of
\nhoarding and black-marketing in foodgrains It is, therefore,
\nnot  necessary\tto dilate on this subject any  further.\t  It
\nwill   be  sufficient  to  extract  here  what\tthe   Bench,
\nconstituted by both of us, said on the point :
\n“.  . . all supplies are not services and all  services\t are
\nnot  supplies but the complex needs and amenities of  modern
\nlife  and  the multifarious obligations of a  welfare  state
\nmingle\tsupplies  and services so much that  the  concentric
\ncircle\tgeometry becomes a misleading stroke of\t gullibility
\nin ‘his jural area.  For example, an essential commodity  is
\nat  once  a  supply and a service.   Section  36(3)  of\t the
\nDefence of India Rules, 1971 defines it to mean :
\n‘essential commodity’ means food, water, fuel, light,  power
\nor  any\t other\tthing essential for  the  existence  of\t the
\ncommunity which is notified in this behalf by Government.
\nLight  and  power’ thus are commodities; so  also  food\t and
\nwater.\t Yet  who  will\t deny that light  is  a\t service  or
\ndrinking  water, for that matter ? The touchstone of  social
\ncontrol\t is  that  it  must be a  thing\t essential  for\t the
\nexistence   of\tthe  community;\t when  crystallised  it\t  is
\nsupplies,  when\t sublimated  it is  services  ….  Food  is
\nsupplies, so is shipping and wagons, kerosene and  gasoline.
\nAnd yet they are services.”\n<\/p>\n
Ail that we may now do is to add copper wire and cables used
\nfor  tele-communications or power transmission to the  above
\nlist of commodities, essential to the life of the community,
\nwhich  are  at\tonce supplies”\tand  “services”\t within\t the
\ncontemplation  of s. 3 (1) (a) (iii) of the Act.  The  first
\ncontention of Mr. Malviya thus stands negatived.
\nWe are unable to accept contention (ii) because this  matter
\nstands concluded by this Court’s judgment in Fagu Shah\tetc.
\netc.  v. State of West Bengal(3).  The argument therein\t was
\nthat  the expression “maximum period” in Article  22(7)\t (b)
\nconnotes  a  definite  period reckoned in  terms  of  years,
\nmonths or days and that no period can be said to be  maximum
\nperiod unless it is possible to predicate its beginning\t and
\nend  in\t terms of years, months or days and that  since\t the
\ndetermination of the period of detention, namely, expiry  of
\nDefence of India Act, 1971, is dependent upon revocation  of
\nProclamation of Emergency, the period
\n(1)  [1948]  1, K. B. 349.  (2) Writ Petition  No.  1972  of
\n1973.\n<\/p>\n
(3)  Writ  Petitions Nos. 41, 106, 113, 214, 441 and 621  of
\n1973. decided on 20-12-1973.\n<\/p>\n
384<\/span><\/p>\n
fixed  under s. 13 of the Act is not the maximum  period  as
\nvisualised  by Art. 22 (7) (b) Mathew J., who spoke for\t the
\nmajority, negatived this contention in these terms :
\n“……..  as  the  object of  preventive  detention  is  to
\nprevent persons from acting in a manner pre-judicial to\t the
\nmaintenance  of internal security, public order or  supplies
\nor  services  essential to the community  or  other  objects
\nspecified  in entry 9 of List I the power to detain must  be
\nadequate  in point of duration to achieve the object.\tAnd,
\nhow can the power be adequate in point of duration, if it is
\ninsufficient  to  cope with an emergency created by  war  or
\npublic\tdisorder  or shortage of supplies essential  to\t the
\ncommunity,  the\t duration  of which might  be  incapable  of
\nbeing, predicated in terms of years, months or days even  by
\nthose  gifted with great prophetic vision ? If ‘the  maximum
\nperiod’ can be fixed only in terms of years, months or\tdays
\ncertainly  it  would have been open to Parliament to  fix  a
\nlong period in s. 13 and justify it as ‘the maximum period’.
\nIt  would be straining the gnat and swallowing the camel  if
\nanybody is shocked by the fixation of the maximum period  of
\ndetention with reference to the duration of an emergency but
\ncould  stomach\twith  complacency the  fixation\t of  maximum
\nperiod, may, at fifteen or twenty years …
\nWe  do not think that the Parliament in fixing the  duration
\nof  the\t maximum period of detention with  reference  to  an
\nevent like the cessation of the period of emergency has,  in
\nany way, abdicated its power or function, to fix the maximum
\nperiod\tor delegated it to the President.  There can  be  no
\ndoubt  that  it\t is Parliament that has\t fixed\tthe  maximum
\nperiod\tin s. 13 of the Act.  The only question is  whether,
\nbecause\t the  duration of the period is dependent  upon\t the
\nvolition  of  the President, it ceases to  be  ‘the  maximum
\nperiod’.    We\tcannot\tpresume\t that  the  President\twill
\nunreasonably  continue\tthe Proclamation of  Emergency\teven
\nafter the emergency has ceased to exist.”\n<\/p>\n
This takes us to contention (iii).\n<\/p>\n
This  objection has been repeatedly raised in habeas  corpus
\npetitions  that have come up before this Bench in  the\tlast
\ntwo months.  In Shaik Hanif v. State of West Bengal(1)\tthis
\nCourt  had pointed out that in return to a Rule Nisi  issued
\nby this Court in a habeas corpus petition, the proper person
\nto file the counter-affidavit is the District Magistrate who
\nhad  passed  the order of detention under s. 3 of  the\tAct,
\nand,  if  for  some  good  reason  the\tMagistrate  is\t not
\navailable,  the\t next  best thing would be  to\tfurnish\t the
\naffidavit of a Senior Officer who personally dealt with\t the
\ncase of the detenu in the Government Secretariat, or had put
\nit to the Minister for orders.\n<\/p>\n
Our  democratic Constitution inhibits blanket and  arbitrary
\ndeprivation   of  a  person’s  liberty\tby  authority.\t  It
\nguarantees that no one shall
\n(1)  Writ Petition No. 1679 of 1973.\n<\/p>\n
385<\/span><\/p>\n
be  deprived  of his personal liberty except  in  accordance
\nwith  procedure established by law.  It further permits\t the
\nState.,\t in the larger interests of society, to so  restrict
\nthat  fundamental  right  that a  reasonable,  but  delicate
\nbalance is maintained on a legal fulcrum between  individual
\nliberty\t and social security.  The slightest deviation\tfrom
\nor  displacement  or infraction or violation  of  the  legal
\nprocedure  symbolised in that fulcrum, upsets  the  balance,
\nintroduces  error and aberration and vitiates  its  working.
\nThis symbolic balance therefore has to be worked with utmost
\ncare  and  attention.\tViewed\tin  that  perspective,\t the
\nrequirement as to the filing of the counter-affidavit by the
\nproper person cannot be treated as an empty formality.\tThis
\nobligation stems from the well-settled principle that once a
\nRule  Nisi is issued on habeas corpus motion, by the  Court,
\nthe  onus  is on the State to show that the liberty  of\t the
\ndetenu\thas  been taken away in\t accordance  with  procedure
\nestablished  by\t law, and that the  safeguards\tprovided  in
\nArticle\t 22  and in the Act, have not been  transgressed  or
\nbypassed.\n<\/p>\n
In Jagdish Prasad v. State of Bihar (supra), also where\t the
\ncounter-affidavit had been sworn by an Assistant of the Home
\nDepartment,  not with personal knowledge, but paper  wisdom,
\nthe  court,  both of us, constituting the  Bench,  expressed
\nitself in the same strain, with added emphasis, thus :
\n“It is difficult to appreciate why in return to rule nisi in
\na  habeas  corpus motion, it is not thought  serious  enough
\neven  where liberty of a citizen is choked off, to  get\t the
\nDistrict  Magistrate to explain his subjective\tsatisfaction
\nand the grounds therefor.  Not even why he is not available,
\nnor  the  next\tbest, the oath of a Senior  Officer  in\t the
\nSecretariat who had been associated with the handling of the
\ncase  at Government level.  Mechanical\taffidavits……  by
\nsome  one handy in the Secretariat cannot  be  regarded…..
\nThis  is not a mere punctilio of procedure but\ta  probative
\nrequirement of substance.”\n<\/p>\n
In the instant case, the Deputy Secretary who has sworn\t the
\naffidavit  does not aver that he had personally\t dealt\twith
\nthe  case of the detenu.  He has sworn the affidavit  merely
\non the basis of paper information gathered from the official
\nrecords.   A  stereotyped explanation, the  same  which\t was
\noffered in similar petitions decided by this Bench,  earlier
\nhas been given for not furnishing the affidavit of the\tDis-
\ntrict  Magistrate.   It\t is stated that\t the  Magistrate  is
\n“preoccupied  in the matter of maintenance of law and  order
\nand  procurement  of rice”.  Such an explanation  is  hardly
\nsatisfactory.\n<\/p>\n
It  was\t all  the more important in this  case\tto  get\t the
\naffidavit  of the District Magistrate, because in this\tcase
\nthe detenu has alleged that lie had been wrongfully arrested
\nand  detained  for  22\tdays  in  the  police  station\t and
\nthereafter the detention order under the Act was foisted  on
\nhim  on the basis of charges which were ‘totally false’\t and
\nhad been concocted by the police and the detaining authority
\nfrom  ulterior\tmotives\t to cover up  his  initial  wrongful
\ndetention.   These allegations of mala fides may  be  wrong.
\nBut  the best informed person to rebut the same on oath\t was
\nthe District Magistrate against whom they were
\n386<\/span>
\nlevelled.  But for the fact that these allegations  of\tmala
\nfides  are  imprecise  and  deficient  in  particulars,\t the
\nomission to furnish the affidavit of the District Magistrate
\nitself\tmight  well have been fatal to the  impugned  order.
\nNevertheless, it is a circumstance to be taken into  account
\nin appreciating the next contention.\n<\/p>\n
The  Deputy  Secretary in his affidavit\t has  disclosed
\nthat therewas\t“reliable   information”   and\t  other
\nmaterial,-in addition to whatwas communicated to the detenu
\nbefore the detaining authorities,in  regard to\tthe  “anti
\nsocial and prejudicial activities” of the petitioner showing
\nhow he was a “veteran copper wire criminal”.
\nNo  body  is  born  a criminal,\t much  less  a\thabitual  or
\n“veteran”  criminal-  It takes time for one, to\t become\t so.
\nThe adjective “veteran” which is synonymous with  “habitual”
\nimplies\t a long course of recurring or\tpersistent  criminal
\nbehaviour or repeated commission of crime.  Surely, all\t the
\ninformation   received\t by  the   District   Magistrate\/the
\nGovernment,  about the repeated criminal activities  of\t the
\ndetenu\thad contributed towards the subjective\tsatisfaction
\nof  the detaining authority.  It will not be extravagant  to
\nsay  that  but for the detenu being in the  opinion  of\t the
\ndetaining  authority  a “veteran” or  habitual\tcopper\twire
\ncriminal,  the District Magistrate might not have taken\t the
\nimpugned action.  Admittedly, the whole of ibis material  or
\n“reliable  information”\t about the “anti-social”  and  “pre-
\njudicial   activities”\tof  the\t detenu\t that  led  to\t his
\ndetention,  was not communicated to him.   This\t information
\nwhich  was withheld was not claimed to be  privileged  under
\nclause\t(6) of Article 22.  The non-communication  of  that-
\nmaterial was violative of Article 22(5) of the\tConstitution
\nand  the Act inasmuch as it did not intimate to\t the  detenu
\nthe full grounds or material to enable him to make an effec-
\ntive  representation.  The detention is thus  illegal.\t We,
\ntherefore,  allow  this Petition, set  aside  the  detention
\norder  and  direct  that the Petitioner be  set\t at  liberty
\nforthwith.\n<\/p>\n
In  Writ  Petition No. 1855 of 1973, Mr. O. P.\tSharma,\t who
\nassisted the Court as amicus curiae, has canvassed the\tsame
\npoints which were urged by Mr. Malviya in Mohd.\t Alam’s case
\n(supra).   The same Deputy Secretary has filed the  counter-
\naffidavit  in this case also.  The same explanation  of\t the
\nomission of the District Magistrate who passed the detention
\norder, to file the counter has been given.  In the affidavit
\nof the Deputy Secretary, it is said that the petitioner is a
\n“person of desperate- and dangerous character” and  “veteran
\ncopper\twire  stealer”.\t Only two instances  spread  over  a
\nperiod\tof about 2-1\/2 months of the theft of  one  valuable
\nunderground post and telegraph telecommunication cables were
\ncommunicated to the detenu.  But other material on the basis
\nof which the District Magistrate\/the Government reached\t the
\nconclusion   that  the\tpetitioner  was\t a  “desperate\t and
\ndangerous  character” and “veteran copper wire stealer”\t was
\nnot  communicated to the detenu.  The  non-communication  of
\nthis material is not sought to be justified on the ground of
\nits, being privileged under Article 22(6).  Indeed,  learned
\nCounsel for the
\n387<\/span>
\nState  has been fair enough to place a copy of the  material
\non record.  It reads :\n<\/p>\n
     “Jiten Niniaoriginally hails from Dumka. He    works
\ntemporarilyas loading cooly in the colliery. He has  got
\nno educationgot\t no  landed property. He is  addicted  to
\nwine  and indulges in gambling in the area. The place  where
\nhe  is staying being infested by criminals and due  ‘lo\t his
\nclose\tassociation   with  them.  he\tdeveloped   criminal
\npropensity.   His mode of living is beyond his means and  as
\nsuch  he started committing petty thefts  against  property.
\nHe  came  in  contact  with copper  wire  criminals  of\t the
\nlocality  and  started committing theft in respect  of\tP.T.
\n‘telecommunication cables and D.V.C. cables in the area.  He
\nis dangerous and desperate in character
\nWhat  has  been\t quoted\t above\tshows  that  the   detaining
\nauthority must have been greatly influenced in ordering\t the
\ndetention  by  this undisclosed material, not the  whole  of
\nwhich  was  germane  to\t the  grounds  on  which  preventive
\ndetention  can\tbe  ordered under the  Act.   In  any  case,
\nomission  to  communicate this material to the\tdetenu\tmust
\nhave  seriously\t prejudiced him in exercising his  right  of
\nmaking an effective representation.\n<\/p>\n
We, therefore, allow Jiten Ninia’s petition also, set  aside
\nhis  detention\tand  direct  that  he  be  set\tat   liberty
\nforthwith.\n<\/p>\n
V. P. S.     Petition allowed.\n388<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Mohd. Alam vs State Of West Bengal on 14 February, 1974 Equivalent citations: 1974 AIR 917, 1974 SCR (3) 379 Author: R S Sarkaria Bench: Sarkaria, Ranjit Singh PETITIONER: MOHD. ALAM Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF WEST BENGAL DATE OF JUDGMENT14\/02\/1974 BENCH: SARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH BENCH: SARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH KRISHNAIYER, V.R. CITATION: […]<\/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-181687","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nMohd. Alam vs State Of West Bengal on 14 February, 1974 - 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\/mohd-alam-vs-state-of-west-bengal-on-14-february-1974\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mohd. Alam vs State Of West Bengal on 14 February, 1974 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-alam-vs-state-of-west-bengal-on-14-february-1974\" \/>\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=\"1974-02-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-07-01T23:10:53+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\\\/mohd-alam-vs-state-of-west-bengal-on-14-february-1974#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohd-alam-vs-state-of-west-bengal-on-14-february-1974\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mohd. Alam vs State Of West Bengal on 14 February, 1974\",\"datePublished\":\"1974-02-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-01T23:10:53+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohd-alam-vs-state-of-west-bengal-on-14-february-1974\"},\"wordCount\":3318,\"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\\\/mohd-alam-vs-state-of-west-bengal-on-14-february-1974#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohd-alam-vs-state-of-west-bengal-on-14-february-1974\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohd-alam-vs-state-of-west-bengal-on-14-february-1974\",\"name\":\"Mohd. Alam vs State Of West Bengal on 14 February, 1974 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1974-02-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-01T23:10:53+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohd-alam-vs-state-of-west-bengal-on-14-february-1974#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohd-alam-vs-state-of-west-bengal-on-14-february-1974\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohd-alam-vs-state-of-west-bengal-on-14-february-1974#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mohd. Alam vs State Of West Bengal on 14 February, 1974\"}]},{\"@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":"Mohd. Alam vs State Of West Bengal on 14 February, 1974 - 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\/mohd-alam-vs-state-of-west-bengal-on-14-february-1974","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mohd. Alam vs State Of West Bengal on 14 February, 1974 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-alam-vs-state-of-west-bengal-on-14-february-1974","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1974-02-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-07-01T23:10:53+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\/mohd-alam-vs-state-of-west-bengal-on-14-february-1974#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-alam-vs-state-of-west-bengal-on-14-february-1974"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mohd. Alam vs State Of West Bengal on 14 February, 1974","datePublished":"1974-02-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-01T23:10:53+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-alam-vs-state-of-west-bengal-on-14-february-1974"},"wordCount":3318,"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\/mohd-alam-vs-state-of-west-bengal-on-14-february-1974#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-alam-vs-state-of-west-bengal-on-14-february-1974","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-alam-vs-state-of-west-bengal-on-14-february-1974","name":"Mohd. Alam vs State Of West Bengal on 14 February, 1974 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1974-02-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-01T23:10:53+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-alam-vs-state-of-west-bengal-on-14-february-1974#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-alam-vs-state-of-west-bengal-on-14-february-1974"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-alam-vs-state-of-west-bengal-on-14-february-1974#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mohd. Alam vs State Of West Bengal on 14 February, 1974"}]},{"@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\/181687","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=181687"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/181687\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=181687"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=181687"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=181687"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}