{"id":97439,"date":"1971-11-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1971-11-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-west-bengal-vs-ashok-dey-ors-etc-etc-on-19-november-1971"},"modified":"2015-04-11T04:55:16","modified_gmt":"2015-04-10T23:25:16","slug":"state-of-west-bengal-vs-ashok-dey-ors-etc-etc-on-19-november-1971","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-west-bengal-vs-ashok-dey-ors-etc-etc-on-19-november-1971","title":{"rendered":"State Of West Bengal vs Ashok Dey &amp; Ors. Etc. Etc on 19 November, 1971"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">State Of West Bengal vs Ashok Dey &amp; Ors. Etc. Etc on 19 November, 1971<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1972 AIR 1660, \t\t  1972 SCR  (2) 434<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: I Dua<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Dua, I.D.<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nSTATE OF WEST BENGAL\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nASHOK DEY &amp; ORS.  ETC.\tETC.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT19\/11\/1971\n\nBENCH:\nDUA, I.D.\nBENCH:\nDUA, I.D.\nSIKRI, S.M. (CJ)\nSHELAT, J.M.\nMITTER, G.K.\n\nCITATION:\n 1972 AIR 1660\t\t  1972 SCR  (2) 434\n 1972 SCC  (1) 179\n CITATOR INFO :\n RF\t    1972 SC1670\t (11)\n RF\t    1972 SC1924\t (1,5)\n R\t    1974 SC 613\t (10,33,52)\n\n\nACT:\nConstitution of India, Arts. 22(4) and 22(7)-Power of  State\nLegislature  to make law providing for preventive  detention\nfor  more than three months under Art. 22(4)  is  concurrent\nwith  that  of\tParliament  under  Art.\t 22(7)-West   Bengal\n(Prevention  of Unlawful Activities) Act, 1970\t(President's\nAct 19 of 1970), ss. 10 to 13-Sections are not violative  of\nArt.  22(7)  and  are  valid-Article  22(7)  is\t permissive-\nPresident's  Act,  19  of  1970 is  not\t violative  of\tArt.\n19(1)(d)  of Constitution--S. 3(2)(c) of  Act,\tconstruction\nof.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe   respondents  were\t detained  under  the  West   Bengal\n(Prevention  of\t Violent  Activities) Act,  1970.   In\twrit\npetitions   before  the\t High  Court  they  challenged\t the\nconstitutional validity of the Act on the following grounds:\n(1) that it was not a law made by Parliament as contemplated\nby  Art. 22(7) of the Constitution with the result that\t the\nextension  of the detention for a period longer\t than  three\nmonths\twas unconstitutional.  Sections 10 to 13 of the\t Act\nwere  described\t as violative of Art. 22(4) and (7)  of\t the\nConstitution;  (2) that the restrictions both in respect  of\nsubstantive  law and in respect of procedure imposed by\t the\nAct   on  detenus'  right  guaranteed  Art.  19(1)(a)\twere\nunreasonable  and, therefore, the Act was  unconstitutional;\nand  (3)  that\tthe  Act was violative of  Art.\t 14  of\t the\nConstitution  in as much as it gave arbitrary. unguided\t and\nuncanalised power to the State Executive without prescribing\nany  guidelines for its exercise.  The High Court held\tthat\nthe  Act was not a law made by Parliament in terms  of\tArt.\n22(7)  of  the\tConstitution.\tIt  further  held  that\t the\nProvisions contained in ss. 11 and 13 of the Act relating to\nthe  procedure before the Advisory Board in respect  of\t the\nperson\tdetained for a longer period than three months\twere\nultra vires Art. 22(7) of the Constitution because under the\nsaid  Article,\tParliament  alone  has\tbeen  invested\twith\njurisdiction to legislate on these matters.  On the question\nof  applicability of Art. 19(1) the High Court came  to\t the\nconclusion  that it Was not applicable to the impugned\tAct.\nThe  challenge on the basis of Art. 14 of  the\tConstitution\nwas also repelled as the classification contemplated by\t the\nAct could by no means be considered unreasonable.  Appeal to\nthis Court was filed by the State.\nHELD  :\t (1)  Article 22(7)(b) and (c)\tare  not  mandatory.\nClause of the Article on its plain reading merely authorises\nor enables the Parliament to make a law prescribing (i)\t the\ncircumstances  under  which a person may be detained  for  a\nperiod longer than three months (ii) the maximum period\t for\nwhich  a  person  may in any class or classes  of  cases  be\ndetained  under the law providing for  preventive  detention\nand (iii) the procedure to be followed by the Advisory Board\nin  an\tinquiry\t under\tcl. (4)(a)  of\tthis  Article.\t The\nrespondents'  contention that 'may' in the opening  part  of\nthis Article must he read as \"shall\" in respect of sub-,cis.\n(b)  and  (c)  though  it  retains  its\t normal\t  permissive\ncharacter in so far as cl. (a) is concerned, in the  absence\nof  special compelling, reasons can be supported neither  on\nprinciple nor by precedent.  On the other hand this Court in\nKrishnan's  case as well as in Gopalan's case  held  sub-cl.\n(b) of cf. (7) to be permissive. [439 H-440 B]\n435\n<a href=\"\/doc\/1879676\/\">S.   Krishnan v. State of Madras,<\/a> [1951] S.C.R. 621, 639 and\nGopalan v. State of Madras, [1950] S.C.R. 88, relied on.\nThe  power  of\tthe State Legislature under  Art.  246\twith\nrespect\t to  preventive detention enumerated in Entry  3  of\nList  III  is  co-extensive with  that\tor  Parliament\twith\nrespect to such preventive detention and it must necessarily\nextend\tto all incidental matters connected with  preventive\ndetention as contemplated by this entry, subject only to the\ncondition  that\t it does not come into conflict with  a\t law\nmade  by Parliament with respect to the same matter.   There\nis  no\tprovision of the Constitution nor of any  other\t law\nwhich  would  justify limitation on the power of  the  State\nLegislature  to\t make a valid law  providing  for  detention\nunder  Art.  22(4) for a period beyond three months  on\t the\nground\tof  absence  of law made  by  Parliament  permitting\ndetention  for such period.  Had the  Constitution  intended\nsuch a result it would certainly have made express provision\nto that effect.\t Security of a State, maintenance of  public\norder,\tand  of\t supplies  and\tservices  essential  to\t the\ncommunity demand effective safeguards in the larger interest\nof sustenance of peaceful democratic way of life. [440 G-441\nF]\nMajority  view\tin Pooranlal Lakhan Pal v. Union  of  India,\n[1958] S.C.R. 460, held binding.\n(2)  (a)  The  restrictions  on\t the  citizen's\t freedom  as\nembodied in Art. 19(1) (d) of the Constitution placed by the\nAct must be held to be eminently in the interest of  general\npublic.\t  This Court can and should take judicial notice  of\nthe  historical\t events which led to the  President's  rule.\nThose events fully demonstrate the necessity in the interest\nof the general public to brings on the statute book the pro-\nvisions of the Act.  The challenge to cls. (a), (b), (d) and\n(e)  of\t s. 3(2) of the Act was prima  facie  unfounded\t for\nthere can be no two opinions about the acts covered by these\nclauses\t being\treasonably likely to be prejudicial  to\t the\nmaintenance  of public order.  That, disturbance  of  public\norder  in  a  State may in  turn  prejudicially\t affect\t its\nsecurity  it  also undeniable.\tFairly\tclose  and  rational\nnexus  between these clauses and the maintenance  of  public\norder and security of the State of West Bengal is writ large\non the face of these clauses. [443 C-D; 445 E-F]\n(b)  When  one closely examines the circumstances  in  which\nthe Act was passed, the mischief intended to be remedied  by\nits  enactment, and the purpose and object of  enacting\t it,\ncl. (c) of sub-s. (2) considered in the background of sub-s.\n(1)  of s. (3) must be construed to mean causing  insult  to\nthe  Indian National Flag or to any other object  of  public\nveneration  in\tsuch a situation as reasonably\texposes\t the\nact,  causing  such insult to the view of  those,  who\thold\nthese  objects in veneration or to the public view,  and  it\nwould not cover cases when the Indian National Flag or other\nobject\tof  public veneration is mutilated,  damaged,  burnt\ndefiled or destroyed, completely unseen or when incapable of\nbeing  seen, by anyone whose feelings are likely to be\thurt\nthereby.  The act causing insult referred to in cl. (c) must\nbe  such  as would be capable of arousing  the\tfeelings  of\nindignation  in someone and that can only be the  case\twhen\ninsult\tis caused in the circumstances just  explained.\t  So\nconstrued, cl.(c)   would, be clearly within the  expression\n\"acting\t in  any manner prejudicial to\tthe  maintenance  of\npublic\torder\".\t This restricted construction of cl. (c)  is\nadmissible  on\tthe statutory language and  the\t legislative\nscheme.\t  On this construction the challenge to cl.  (c)  on\nthe  basis that insulting an object of public veneration  in\nprivacy could have no rational nexus with the disturbance of\npublic order or security of the State, must fail. [445 H-446\nD]\n436\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeals Nos.\t 217<br \/>\nto 233 of 1971.\n<\/p>\n<p>Appeals from the judgment and order dated September 13, 1971<br \/>\nof  the\t Calcutta High Court in Criminal Misc.\t Cases\tNos.<br \/>\n169, 177, 222, 224, 229, 230, 231, 237, 285, 236, 287,\t316,<br \/>\n328, 329, 330 and 331 of 1971.\n<\/p>\n<p>Niren  De,  Attorney-General,  D. N.  Mukherjee\t and  G.  S.<br \/>\nChaterjee, for the appellant (in all the appeals).<br \/>\nNiren  De, Attorney-General, R. H. Dhebar, Ram Panjwani\t and<br \/>\nS. P. Nayar, for the Attorney-General for India (in all\t the<br \/>\nappeals).\n<\/p>\n<p>Somnath Chatterjee, D. K. Sinha, Rathin Das, and Indira\t Jai<br \/>\nSingh,\tfor the respondents (in Cr.  As.  Nos. 219, 223\t and<br \/>\n225 to 227 of 1971).\n<\/p>\n<p>Aruk  Prakash  Chatterjee, Rathin Das, Dalip  K.  Sinha\t and<br \/>\nIndira Jai Singh, for the respondents (in Cr.  As.  Nos. 228<br \/>\nand 230 to 233 of 1971).\n<\/p>\n<p>The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\nDua,  J.-These\tappeals have been presented  to\t this  Court<br \/>\npursuant  to certificate of fitness granted by the  Calcutta<br \/>\nHigh  Court  under Art. 132(1) of the  Constitution  from  a<br \/>\ncommon\tjudgment  of that Court allowing 17  writ  petitions<br \/>\npresented  on behalf of the persons detained under the\tWest<br \/>\nBengal\t (Prevention  of  Violent  Activities)\t Act,\t1970<br \/>\n(President&#8217;s Act 19 of 1970) (hereafter called the Act).  In<br \/>\nthe  High Court the constitutional validity of the  Act\t was<br \/>\nchallenged on the grounds :(1) that it was not a law made by<br \/>\nParliament as contemplated by Art. 22(7) of the Constitution<br \/>\nwith  the result that the extension of the detention  for  a<br \/>\nperiod\tlonger\tthan  three  months  was   unconstitutional.<br \/>\nSections 10 to 13 of the Act were described as violative  of<br \/>\nArt.  22(4)  and  (7)  of the  Constitution;  (2)  that\t the<br \/>\nrestrictions  both  in\trespect of substantive\tlaw  and  in<br \/>\nrespect\t of procedure imposed by the Act on  detenus&#8217;  right<br \/>\nguaranteed   by\t  Art.\t19(1)(d)  were\t unreasonable\tand,<br \/>\ntherefore,  the Act was unconstitutional; and (3)  that\t the<br \/>\nAct was violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution inasmuch as<br \/>\nit  gave  arbitrary, unguided and uncanalised power  to\t the<br \/>\nState  Executive without prescribing any guidelines for\t its<br \/>\nexercise.\n<\/p>\n<p>The  High  Court  held that the Act was not a  law  made  by<br \/>\nParliament in terms of Art. 22(7) of the Constitution.\tThis<br \/>\nconclusion is not questioned by the learned Attorney General<br \/>\nbefore\tus and indeed he has conceded that the Act is not  a<br \/>\nlaw  made by Parliament as contemplated by Art. 22(7).\t The<br \/>\nHigh<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">437<\/span><br \/>\nCourt then considered the question of the effect of the Act,<br \/>\nif it is to be deemed to be an Act passed by the West Bengal<br \/>\nLegislature.   On this point it came to the conclusion\tthat<br \/>\nthe  provisions\t contained  in ss. 1 1 and  13\tof  the\t Act<br \/>\nrelating  to  the  procedure before the\t Advisory  Board  in<br \/>\nrespect\t of  the person detained for a\tlonger\tperiod\tthan<br \/>\nthree months was ultra vires Art. 22(7) of the\tConstitution<br \/>\nbecause\t under the said Article, Parliament alone  has\tbeen<br \/>\ninvested  with jurisdiction to legislate on  these  matters.<br \/>\nThe State Legislature was accordingly held to be incompetent<br \/>\nto  make a law prescribing procedure for the Advisory  Board<br \/>\nand also to make a law providing for detention for more than<br \/>\nthree  months.\t On the question of  applicability  of\tArt.<br \/>\n19(1) the High Court came to the conclusion that it was\t not<br \/>\napplicable to the impugned Act and, therefore, the Act could<br \/>\nnot  be struck down as violative of Art. 19(1)(d)  or  under<br \/>\nany other clause of Art. 19(1).\t The challenge on the  basis<br \/>\nof  Art.  14 of the Constitution was also  repelled  as\t the<br \/>\nclassification contemplated by the Act could by no means  be<br \/>\nconsidered unreasonable.  In the final result on the  ground<br \/>\nof  invalidity\tof  ss.\t II and 13  the\t writ  petition\t was<br \/>\nallowed with respect to the detention of the detenus  beyond<br \/>\nthe period of three months.\n<\/p>\n<p>In this Court the learned Attorney General has\tconcentrated<br \/>\nhis  attack  on the impugned judgment on the  argument\tthat<br \/>\nArt.  22(7)  of the Constitution does not  confer  exclusive<br \/>\njurisdiction  on  the  Parliament to make a  law  for  valid<br \/>\ndetention  of persons for a period longer than three  months<br \/>\nand  that the State Legislature is fully competent, to\tmake<br \/>\nlaws for detention, to prescribe procedure for the  Advisory<br \/>\nBoard and also to make law for the detenus beyond the period<br \/>\nof three months.\n<\/p>\n<p>In order to appreciate the legal position it is desirable to<br \/>\nreproduce Art. 22 of the Constitution :\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8220;22.  Protection against arrest and  detention<br \/>\n\t      in certain cases :\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t       (1)  No\tperson\twho  is\t arrested  shall  be<br \/>\n\t      detained in custody without being informed, as<br \/>\n\t      soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest<br \/>\n\t      nor  shall he be denied the right to  consult,<br \/>\n\t      and to be defended by, a legal practitioner of<br \/>\n\t      his choice.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      (2)   Every   person  who\t is   arrested\t and<br \/>\n\t      detained\tin custody shall be produced  before<br \/>\n\t      the  nearest  magistrate within  a  period  of<br \/>\n\t      twenty-four hours of such arrest excluding the<br \/>\n\t      time necessary for the journey from the  place<br \/>\n\t      of  arrest to the court of the magistrate\t and<br \/>\n\t      not  such person shall be detained in  custody<br \/>\n\t      beyond  the said period without the  authority<br \/>\n\t      of a magistrate.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">\t       438<\/span><\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      (3)   Nothing  in\t clauses (1) and  (2)  shall<br \/>\n\t      apply-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      (a)   to any person who for the time being  is<br \/>\n\t      an enemy alien; or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      (b)   to\t any  person  who  is  arrested\t  or<br \/>\n\t      detained\t under\t any   law   providing\t for<br \/>\n\t      preventive detention.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t       (4)  No\t law   providing   for\t  preventive<br \/>\n\t      detention\t shall authorise the detention of  a<br \/>\n\t      person  for a longer period than three  months<br \/>\n\t      unless-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      (a)   an Advisory Board consisting of  persons<br \/>\n\t      who are, or have been, or are qualified to  be<br \/>\n\t      appointed\t as,  Judges  of a  High  Court\t has<br \/>\n\t      reported\tbefore\tthe expiration of  the\tsaid<br \/>\n\t      period  of three months that there is  in\t its<br \/>\n\t      opinion sufficient cause for such detention :<br \/>\n\t      Provided that nothing in this sub-clause shall<br \/>\n\t      authorise\t the detention of any person  beyond<br \/>\n\t      the maximum period prescribed by any law\tmade<br \/>\n\t      by  Parliament under sub-clause (b) of  clause<br \/>\n\t      (7); or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      (b)   such  person is detained  in  accordance<br \/>\n\t      with  the\t provisions  of\t any  law  made\t  by<br \/>\n\t      Parliament  under sub-clauses (a) and  (b)  of<br \/>\n\t      clause (7).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t       (5)  When any person is detained in pursuance<br \/>\n\t      of  an order made under any law providing\t for<br \/>\n\t      preventive detention, the authority making the<br \/>\n\t      order shall as soon as may be, communicate  to<br \/>\n\t      such person the grounds on which the order has<br \/>\n\t      been  made and shall afford him  the  earliest<br \/>\n\t      opportunity of making a representation against<br \/>\n\t      the order.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      (6)   Nothing in Clause (5) shall require\t the<br \/>\n\t      authority making any such order as is referred<br \/>\n\t      to  in  that ,clause to disclose\tfacts  which<br \/>\n\t      such  authority  considers to be\tagainst\t the<br \/>\n\t      public interest to disclose.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      (7)   Parliament may by law prescribe-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      (a)   the circumstances tinder which, and\t the<br \/>\n\t      class  or classes of cases in which, a  person<br \/>\n\t      may be detained for a period longer than three<br \/>\n\t      months under any law providing for  preventive<br \/>\n\t      detention without obtaining the opinion of  an<br \/>\n\t      Advisory\t Board\t in  accordance\t  with\t the<br \/>\n\t      provisions of sub-clause (a) of clause (4);\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">\t       439<\/span><\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      (b)   the maximum period for which any  person<br \/>\n\t      may  in  any  class or  classes  of  cases  be<br \/>\n\t      detained\t under\t any   law   providing\t for<br \/>\n\t      preventive detention; and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      (c)   the\t procedure  to\tbe  followed  by  an<br \/>\n\t      Advisory Board in any inquiry under sub-clause\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      (a) of clause (4).&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>It  is clear that cl. (4) of this Article only\tprohibits  a<br \/>\nlaw   providing\t for  preventive  detention,  to   authorise<br \/>\ndetention  of a person for more than three months unless  an<br \/>\nAdvisory  Board as contemplated by sub-cl. (a) of  the\tsaid<br \/>\nclause has, before the expiry of three months of  detention,<br \/>\nreported  that in its opinion there is sufficient cause\t for<br \/>\nsuch  detention,  or  unless  such  person  is\tdetained  in<br \/>\naccordance with the provisions of any law made by Parliament<br \/>\nunder  sub-cl. (a) and (b) of cl. (7).\tAgain, even when  an<br \/>\nAdvisory  Board has, under sub-cl. (a) of cl. (7),  reported<br \/>\nthe  existence of sufficient cause, detention cannot  exceed<br \/>\nthe  maximum period prescribed by a law made  by  Parliament<br \/>\nunder  sub-cl.\t(b) of this clause.   The  expression  &#8220;such<br \/>\ndetention&#8221;  in\tsub-cl.\t (a) of cl. (4),  according  to\t the<br \/>\nmajority  view in Pooranlal Lakhan Pal v. Union of  India(1)<br \/>\nrefers\tto  preventive detention and not to any\t period\t for<br \/>\nwhich  such  detention is to continue because  the  decision<br \/>\nabout  the  period  of detention can only be  taken  by\t the<br \/>\ndetaining authority.\n<\/p>\n<p>Now,  the argument raised in the High Court and accepted  by<br \/>\nit and repeated before us by Shri S. N. Chatterji on  behalf<br \/>\nof  the respondents is that cl. (7) (b) of Art. 22 makes  it<br \/>\nobligatory  for\t the  Parliament to  prescribe\tby  law\t the<br \/>\nmaximum\t period for which a person may be detained  as\talso<br \/>\nthe  procedure\tto  be followed by  the\t Advisory  Board  in<br \/>\nholding\t the  enquiry  under cl. (4) (a)  of  this  Article.<br \/>\nAccording to the submission, in the absence of such a law by<br \/>\nParliament no order of detention can authorise detention  of<br \/>\nany person for a period longer than three months and at\t the<br \/>\nexpiry\tof three months all persons detained under  the\t Act<br \/>\nmust be released.\n<\/p>\n<p>We are unable to accept this construction of cl. (7) of Art.\n<\/p>\n<p>22.  It is noteworthy that Shri Chatterji,  learned  counsel<br \/>\nfor the respondents, expressly conceded before us that\tArt.<br \/>\n22(7)  is only an enabling or a permissive provision and  it<br \/>\ndoes not impose a mandatory obligation on the Parliament  to<br \/>\nmake  a\t law  prescribing the circumstances  under  which  a<br \/>\nperson may be detained for more than three months as  stated<br \/>\ntherein.   But according to him sub-cl. (b) and (c)  of\t cl.<br \/>\n(7)  do\t contain  a  mandate  to  the  Parliament  which  is<br \/>\nobligatory.   In  our view, cl. (7) of this Article  on\t its<br \/>\nplain reading merely authorises or enables the<br \/>\n(1)  [1958] S.C.R. 460.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">440<\/span><\/p>\n<p>Parliament to make a law prescribing, (i) the  circumstances<br \/>\nunder  which  a person may be detained for a  period  longer<br \/>\nthan  three  months,  (ii) the maximum period  for  which  a<br \/>\nperson\tmay  in any class or classes of\t cases\tbe  detained<br \/>\nunder  any law providing for preventive detention and  (iii)<br \/>\nthe  procedure\tto be followed by the Advisory Board  in  an<br \/>\nenquiry under cl. (4) (a) of this Article.  The respondents&#8217;<br \/>\ncontention  that &#8220;may&#8221; in the opening part of  this  Article<br \/>\nmust be read as &#8220;shall&#8221; in respect of subclauses (b) and (c)<br \/>\nthough it retains its normal permissive character in so\t far<br \/>\nas  cl.\t (a)  is  concerned,  in  the  absence\tof   special<br \/>\ncompelling reasons can be supported neither on principle nor<br \/>\nby precedent of which we are aware.  On the other hand\tthis<br \/>\nCourt  has  in <a href=\"\/doc\/1879676\/\">S. Krishnan v. State of\tMadras<\/a>(1),  agreeing<br \/>\nwith  the observations of Kania C.J. in Gopalan v. State  of<br \/>\nMadras 2 held sub-cl. (b) of cl. (7) to be permissive.\tThis<br \/>\nopinion\t is  not  only\tbinding on us but  we  are  also  in<br \/>\nrespectful agreement with it. Apart from the exclusive power<br \/>\nof  the\t Parliament to make laws in respect  of\t &#8220;preventive<br \/>\ndetention  for\treasons\t connected  with  defence,   foreign<br \/>\naffairs\t or  security  of India;  persons  subject  to\tsuch<br \/>\ndetention&#8221;  (vide Art. 246 (1 ) and Entry 9 List I,  Seventh<br \/>\nSchedule),  Parliament\tand  State  Legislatures  have\tboth<br \/>\nconcurrent  powers  to make laws in respect  of\t &#8220;preventive<br \/>\ndetention  for\treasons\t connected with the  security  of  a<br \/>\nState,\tthe maintenance of public order, or the\t maintenance<br \/>\nof supplies and services essential to the community; persons<br \/>\nsubject to such detentions&#8221; (vide Art. 246(2) and Entry 3 in<br \/>\nList III of Seventh Schedule).\tA law made by Parliament  in<br \/>\nrespect\t of  preventive detention falling under Entry  3  of<br \/>\nList  III has to prevail over a State law on the subject  to<br \/>\nthe extent to which it is repugnant lo the State law  unless<br \/>\nthe  State  law\t is covered  by\t Art.  254(2).\t Parliament,<br \/>\nhowever,  is not debarred by cl. (2), as is clear  from\t the<br \/>\nProviso.  from\tenacting a law with  respect  to  preventive<br \/>\ndetention  enumerated in Entry 3 of List III which may\thive<br \/>\nthe effect of adding to, amending, varying or repealing such<br \/>\nState law.  The State Legislature has thus plenary power  to<br \/>\nmake  a\t law providing for preventive detention\t within\t the<br \/>\nlimitations  imposed by the Constitution just noticed.\t The<br \/>\npower of the State Legislatures under Art. 246 with  respect<br \/>\nto preventive detention enumerated in Entry 3 of List III is<br \/>\nco-extensive  with that of Parliament with respect  to\tsuch<br \/>\npreventive  detention and it must necessarily extend to\t all<br \/>\nincidental  matters connected with preventive  detention  as<br \/>\ncontemplated  by this entry, subject only to  the  condition<br \/>\nthat  it  does\tnot come into conflict with a  law  made  by<br \/>\nParliament  with  respect to the same matter.  There  is  no<br \/>\nprovision  of  the Constitution to which our  attention\t has<br \/>\nbeen  drawn nor has any principle of law or  precedent\tbeen<br \/>\nbrought to our notice, which would<br \/>\n(1)  [1951] S.C.R. 621 at 639.\n<\/p>\n<p>(2) [1950] S.C.R. 88.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">441<\/span><\/p>\n<p>justify a limitation on the power of the State\tLegislature,<br \/>\nas  suggested  by  the\trespondent,  to\t make  a  valid\t law<br \/>\nproviding for detention under Art. 22(4) for a period beyond<br \/>\nthree  months  on  the ground of absence of a  law  made  by<br \/>\nParliament  permitting detention for such period.   Had\t the<br \/>\nConstitution intended such a result it would certainly\thave<br \/>\nmade  an  express provision to that effect.  Since  Art.  22<br \/>\ncovers the subject of preventive decision both under the law<br \/>\nmade  by Parliament and that made by State Legislatures,  if<br \/>\nState  Legislatures  were intended by  the  Constitution  to<br \/>\nfunction  under\t a limitation in respect of  the  period  of<br \/>\ndetention one would have expected to find such a  limitation<br \/>\nexpressly stated in this Article.  But as we read cl. (7) of<br \/>\nArt. 22 it merely invests the Parliament with an  overriding<br \/>\npower enabling it, if the circumstances so require, to\tmake<br \/>\na  law, providing for preventive detention  prescribing\t the<br \/>\ncircumstances  under  which a person may be detained  for  a<br \/>\nperiod\tlonger\tthan  three  months  without  obtaining\t the<br \/>\nopinion\t of  an Advisory Board and,  also,  prescribing\t the<br \/>\nmaximum\t period for which any person may be  detained  under<br \/>\nany  such  law and further prescribing the procedure  to  be<br \/>\nfollowed  by  an Advisory Board.  It does not  prohibit\t the<br \/>\nState  Legislature  from making a law either  providing\t for<br \/>\npreventive detention for a longer period than three  month-,<br \/>\nwhen  there  is a provision for securing the opinion  of  an<br \/>\nAdvisory  Board or prescribing procedure to be\tfollowed  by<br \/>\nsuch  Advisory\tBoard.\t Such a power  with  the  State\t Leg<br \/>\nstature, hedged in by effective safeguards as it is, appears<br \/>\nto  us\tto be necessary to enable it to deal  with  emergent<br \/>\nsituations   necessitating   enactments\t with\trespect\t  to<br \/>\npreventive  detention for safeguarding the security  of\t the<br \/>\nState against violent activities secretly organised by anti-<br \/>\nsocial\tand  subversive\t elements  with\t the  intention\t  of<br \/>\nproducing chaos.  Security of a State, maintenance of public<br \/>\norder  and  of\tsupplies  and  services\t essential  to\t the<br \/>\ncommunity demand effective safeguards in the larger interest<br \/>\nof  sustenance of peaceful democratic way of life.   Article<br \/>\n22,  therefore,\t must  be construed on\tits  plain  language<br \/>\nconsistently with the basic requirement of preventing  anti-<br \/>\nsocial subversive element&#8217;s from imperiling the security  of<br \/>\nStates\tor the maintenance of public order or  of  essential<br \/>\nsupplies and services therein.\n<\/p>\n<p>On  behalf  of the respondents some stress was laid  on\t the<br \/>\ndissenting  opinion  of\t Sarkar\t J., (as  he  then  was)  in<br \/>\nPooranlal  Lakhan Pal&#8217;s case(1).  The majority view in\tthat<br \/>\ncase  is,  however,  not only binding on us but\t we  are  in<br \/>\nrespectful agreement with that view.\n<\/p>\n<p>Shri  A.  P. Chatterjee also appearing for  the\t respondents<br \/>\naddressed  elaborate arguments in support of the  submission<br \/>\nthat,  after  the  decision  in <a href=\"\/doc\/513801\/\">R. C.  Cooper  v.  Union  of<br \/>\nIndia<\/a>(2) the view<br \/>\n(1) [1958] S.C.R. 460<br \/>\n(2) [1970]3 S.C.R. 530.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">442<\/span><\/p>\n<p>taken in Gopalan&#8217;s case (supra), that Art. 22 is  exhaustive<br \/>\non the subject of preventive detention and Art. 19(1)(d)  is<br \/>\nwholly\tout of the picture, is no longer good law.  On\tthis<br \/>\npremise\t  he  attempted\t to  develop  his  attack   on\t the<br \/>\nreasonableness\t of   the  restrictions\t  imposed   on\t the<br \/>\nfundamental  right  of a person detained under the  Act,  to<br \/>\nmove freely throughout the territory of India.\tAccording to<br \/>\nhis  submission\t the  restrictions imposed  on\tthe  persons<br \/>\ndetained  under\t the  Act are not in  the  interest  of\t the<br \/>\ngeneral\t public with the result that the Act must be  struck<br \/>\ndown  as  violative of Art. 19 (1) (d).\t On  behalf  of\t the<br \/>\nappellants  this argument was countered on the\tground\tthat<br \/>\nCooper&#8217;s  case\t(supra) was strictly confined  only  to\t the<br \/>\nright of property and that the right to personal freedom was<br \/>\nnot directly involved.\tIn the alternative, according to the<br \/>\nlearned\t Attorney  General, the restrictions  imposed  on  a<br \/>\nperson\twho is detained with a view to preventing  him\tfrom<br \/>\nacting\tin  any manner Prejudicial to the  security  of\t the<br \/>\nState  or the maintenance of public order, as  the  impugned<br \/>\nAct  purports to do, cannot be considered not to be  in\t the<br \/>\ninterest of the general public.\n<\/p>\n<p>In  our opinion, assuming that Art. 19(1)(d) of the  Consti-<br \/>\ntution\tis  attracted to the case of  preventive  detention,<br \/>\nrestrictions imposed by the Act on the fundamental rights of<br \/>\na  citizen,  who has been detained under the  Act,  to\tmove<br \/>\nfreely\tthroughout  the territory of India, with a  view  to<br \/>\npreventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to\t the<br \/>\nsecurity  of  the  State of West Bengal\t or  maintenance  of<br \/>\npublic\torder,\tare clearly in the interest of\tthe  general<br \/>\npublic.\t The Act, it has to be borne in mind, was brought on<br \/>\nthe  statute book by the President because of a\t feeling  of<br \/>\n&#8220;increasing  anxiety over the continuing violent  activities<br \/>\nin  West Bengal of the &#8216;Naxalites&#8217;, other similar  extremist<br \/>\ngroups\tand antisocial elements operating with them.&#8221;  (vide<br \/>\nReasons for the enactment).  The existing laws, as  &#8220;Reasons<br \/>\nfor  enactment&#8221; also expressly point out, were &#8220;found to  be<br \/>\ninadequate  for\t dealing  with the  situation&#8221;\tand  it\t was<br \/>\nconsidered &#8220;necessary to vest the State administration\twith<br \/>\npowers\tto  detain  persons in order to\t prevent  them\tfrom<br \/>\nindulging   in\t violent  activities&#8221;.\t To   complete\t the<br \/>\nhistorical  background,\t it may, at this stage,\t be  pointed<br \/>\nout,  that on March 19, 1970 a proclamation had been  issued<br \/>\nby  the\t President under Art. 356 of the  Constitution\tfrom<br \/>\nwhich it is clear that he was satisfied that a situation had<br \/>\narisen\tin which the Government of that State could  not  be<br \/>\ncarried\t on  in\t accordance  with  the\tprovisions  of\t the<br \/>\nConstitution  and the President assumed to himself  all\t the<br \/>\nfunctions of the Government of that State.  Pursuant to that<br \/>\nproclamation  on  April 29, 1970 the Parliament\t passed\t the<br \/>\nWest Bengal State Legislature (Delegation of Powers) Act, 17<br \/>\nof 1970 whereby the power of the Legislature of the State of<br \/>\nWest  Bengal  to make laws was conferred on  the  President.<br \/>\nThis<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">443<\/span><br \/>\nwould  clearly show that the situation in the State of\tWest<br \/>\nBengal\twas not normal when the Act was enacted.  It  is  of<br \/>\ncourse undemable that in considering, statutes like the\t one<br \/>\nbefore us this Court ought to shove the greatest concern and<br \/>\nsolicitude  in\tupholding and safeguarding  the\t fundamental<br \/>\nright  of liberty of the citizen.  But as against  that,  we<br \/>\nmust  not  forget  the historical background  in  which\t the<br \/>\nnecessity  for enacting the Act was felt by  the  President.<br \/>\nIt  is\talso noteworthy that before enacting  this  Act\t the<br \/>\nCommittee constituted under the proviso to S. 3(2) of Act 17<br \/>\nof 1970 was also duly consulted.  Keeping in view the  times<br \/>\nwe  are living in particularly the present situation in\t the<br \/>\nState  of  West Bengal, where lawlessness and  sabotage\t has<br \/>\nsince  a  long\ttime  been rampant  to\tan  extent  hitherto<br \/>\nunknown,  it  seems  to\t us that  the  restrictions  on\t the<br \/>\ncitizens  freedom,  as embodied in Art. 19 (1)\t(d)  of\t the<br \/>\nConstitution,  placed  by  the\tAct,  must  be\theld  to  be<br \/>\neminently in the interest of the general public.  This Court<br \/>\ncan and should take judicial notice of the historical events<br \/>\nwhich  led  to the President&#8217;s rule.  Those events,  in\t our<br \/>\nview, fully demonstrate the necessity in the interest of the<br \/>\ngeneral\t public to bring on the statute book the  provisions<br \/>\nof  the Act.  The general argument challenging the vires  of<br \/>\nthe Act is thus wholly without substance.<br \/>\nShri  A.  P.  Chatterjee next directed\this  attack  to\t the<br \/>\nvalidity of the various clauses of sub-s. (2) of s. 3 of the<br \/>\nAct.  According to the submission these clauses\t arbitrarily<br \/>\nextend\tthe  scope of the expression &#8220;acting in\t any  manner<br \/>\nprejudicial to the security of a State or the maintenance of<br \/>\npublic\torder.&#8221;\t Let  us  turn to s.3 to  see  how  far\t the<br \/>\nrespondents&#8217; attack is substantiated.  This section reads :-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8220;3(1)  The State Government may, if  satisfied<br \/>\n\t      with respect lo any person that with a view to<br \/>\n\t      preventing  him  from  acting  in\t any  manner<br \/>\n\t      prejudicial  to the security of the  State  or<br \/>\n\t      the   maintenance\t of  public  order,  it\t  is<br \/>\n\t      necessary\t so to do, make an  order  directing<br \/>\n\t      that such person be detained.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      (2)   For the purposes of sub-section (1), the<br \/>\n\t      expression  &#8216;acting in any manner\t prejudicial<br \/>\n\t      to   the\t security  of  the  State   or\t the<br \/>\n\t      maintenance of public order&#8217; means-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      (a)   using,  or\tinstigating  any  person  by<br \/>\n\t      words, either spoken or written or by signs or<br \/>\n\t      by  visible representations or  otherwise,  to<br \/>\n\t      use, any lethal weapon-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      (i)   to\tpromote\t or propagate any  cause  or<br \/>\n\t      ideology, the promotion or propagation of<br \/>\n\t      16-L500 Sup Cl\/72<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">\t      444<\/span><br \/>\n\t      which affects, or is likely to affect,  adver-<br \/>\n\t      sely  the security of the State, or the  main-<br \/>\n\t      tenance of public order; or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      (ii)  to\toverthrow or to overawe the  Govern-<br \/>\n\t      ment established by law in India.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>\t      Explanation.&#8212;In this clause, &#8216;lethal weapon&#8217;<br \/>\n\t      includes\tfire-arms,  explosive  or  corrosive<br \/>\n\t      substances, swords, spears, daggers, bows\t and<br \/>\n\t      arrows; or\n<\/p>\n<p>\t      (b)   committing mischief, within the  meaning<br \/>\n\t      of  section 425 of the Indian Penal  Code,  by<br \/>\n\t      fire   or\t any  explosive\t substance  on\t any<br \/>\n\t      property\t of   Government  or   any   local&#8217;,<br \/>\n\t      authority\t  or   any  corporation\t  owned\t  or<br \/>\n\t      controlled by Government or any University  or<br \/>\n\t      other educational institution or on any public<br \/>\n\t      building,\t  where\t the  commission   of\tsuch<br \/>\n\t      mischief\tdisturbs, or is &#8216;likely to  disturb,<br \/>\n\t      public order; or\n<\/p>\n<p>\t      (c)   causing  insult to the  Indian  National<br \/>\n\t      Flag   or\t to  any  other\t object\t of   public<br \/>\n\t\t\t    veneration,\t whether by  mutilating,<br \/>\ndamaging,<br \/>\n\t      burning, defiling, destroying or otherwise, or<br \/>\n\t      instigating any person to do so.\n<\/p>\n<p>Explanation.-In\t this clause, &#8216;object of public\t veneration&#8217;<br \/>\nincludes  any  portrait\t or statute of\tan  eminent  Indian,<br \/>\ninstalled  in a public place as a mark of respect to him  or<br \/>\nto his memory; or\n<\/p>\n<p>\t      (d)   committing, or instigating any person to<br \/>\n\t      commit, any offence, punishable with death  or<br \/>\n\t      imprisonment  for life or imprisonment  for  a<br \/>\n\t      term  extending to seven years or more or\t any<br \/>\n\t      offence  under  the  Arms\t Act,  1959  or\t the<br \/>\n\t      Explosive\t Substances  Act,  1908,  where\t the<br \/>\n\t      commission  of  such offence disturbs,  or  is<br \/>\n\t      likely to disturb, public order; or\n<\/p>\n<p>\t      (e)   in\tthe case of a person referred to  in<br \/>\n\t      clauses (a) to (f) of section 110 of the\tCode<br \/>\n\t      of  Criminal Procedure, 1898,  committing\t any<br \/>\n\t      offence punishable with imprisonment where the<br \/>\n\t      commission  of  such offence disturbs,  or  is<br \/>\n\t      likely to disturb, public order.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t      (3)   Any of the following officers, namely\n<\/p>\n<p>\t      (a)   District Magistrates,\n<\/p>\n<p>\t      (b)   Additional\t   District\t Magistrates<br \/>\n\t      specially\t empowered  in this  behalf  by\t the<br \/>\n\t      State Government,.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">\t       445<\/span><\/p>\n<p>\t      (c)   in the Presidency-town of Calcutta,\t the<br \/>\n\t      Commissioner of Police, Calcutta,<br \/>\n\t      may,  if satisfied as provided in\t sub-section<br \/>\n\t      (1), exercise the power conferred by the\tsaid<br \/>\n\t      sub-section.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t      (4)   When  any  order  is  made\tunder\tthis<br \/>\n\t      section by an officer specified in sub-section<br \/>\n\t      (3), he shall forthwith report the fact to the<br \/>\n\t      State Government together with the grounds  on<br \/>\n\t      which  the order has been made and such  other<br \/>\n\t      particulars  as in his opinion have a  bearing<br \/>\n\t      on  the matter and no such order shall  remain<br \/>\n\t      in  force for more than twelve days after\t the<br \/>\n\t      making  thereof unless, in the mean  time,  it<br \/>\n\t      has been approved by the State Government.<br \/>\n\t      (5)   When  any order is made or\tapproved  by<br \/>\n\t      the  State Government under this section,\t the<br \/>\n\t      State  Government\t shall, as soon as  may\t be,<br \/>\n\t\t\t    report  the\t fact  to  the\tCentral\t G<br \/>\novernment<br \/>\n\t      together\twith the grounds on which the  order<br \/>\n\t      has  been made and such other particulars\t as,<br \/>\n\t      in the opinion of the State Government have  a<br \/>\n\t      bearing on the necessity for the order.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>The  challenge to cl. (a), (b), (d) and (e) is\tprima  facie<br \/>\nunfounded  for there &#8216;can be no two opinions about the\tacts<br \/>\ncovered\t by  these  clauses being reasonably  likely  to  be<br \/>\nprejudicial  to\t the  maintenance of  public  order.   That,<br \/>\ndisturbance  of\t public\t order\tin  a  State  may  in\tturn<br \/>\nprejudicially  affect  its  security,  is  also\t undeniable.<br \/>\nFairly\tclose and rational nexus between these\tclauses\t and<br \/>\nthe maintenance of public order and security of the State of<br \/>\nWest Bengal is writ large on the face of these clauses.\t  In<br \/>\nview  of the clear language of these clauses we consider  it<br \/>\nwholly unnecessary to deal with them at greater length.<br \/>\nIn  regard to cl. (c) Shri Chatterjee laid emphasis  on\t the<br \/>\nfact  that causing insult to the Indian National Flag or  to<br \/>\nany  other object of public veneration, as clarified in\t the<br \/>\nexplanation, need not always result in an act which may-  be<br \/>\nconsidered  prejudicial to the security of the State or\t the<br \/>\nmaintenance of public order.  Insulting the object of public<br \/>\nveneration  in privacy without the act causing insult  being<br \/>\nnoticed\t by  anyone  who holds them in\tveneration,  it\t was<br \/>\nargued,\t could\thave no rational nexus with  disturbance  of<br \/>\npublic order or security of a State.  The argument stated in<br \/>\nthe  abstract is attractive.  But when one closely  examines<br \/>\nthe circumstances in which the Act was passed, the  mischief<br \/>\nintended  to be remedied by its enactment, and\tthe  purpose<br \/>\nand object of enacting it, cl. (c) of sub-s. (2), considered<br \/>\nin  the\t background  of\t sub-s. (1) of s.  3  must,  in\t our<br \/>\nopinion, be constru-\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">446<\/span><\/p>\n<p>ed to mean causing insult to the Indian National Flag or  to<br \/>\nany other object of public veneration in such a situation as<br \/>\nreasonably exposes the act, causing such insult, to the view<br \/>\nof  those,  who hold these objects in veneration or  to\t the<br \/>\npublic\tview, and it would not cover cases where the  Indian<br \/>\nNational  Flag\tor  other object  of  public  veneration  is<br \/>\nmutilated, damaged, burnt, defiled or destroyed,  completely<br \/>\nunseen\tor  when incapable of being seen,  by  anyone  whose<br \/>\nfeelings  are  likely to be hurt thereby.  The\tact  causing<br \/>\ninsult\treferred  to  in cl. (c) must be such  as  would  be<br \/>\ncapable\t of arousing the feelings of indignation in  someone<br \/>\nand  that can only be the case when insult is caused in\t the<br \/>\ncircumstances  just explained. So construed, cl. (c)  would,<br \/>\nin our view, be clearly within the expression &#8216;acting in any<br \/>\nmanner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order&#8217;.\t  It<br \/>\nwould  perhaps\thave  been better if this  aspect  had\tbeen<br \/>\nclarified in the Act, but legitimately imputing to the\tlaw-<br \/>\nmaker the intention to enact a valid provision of law within<br \/>\nthe  constitutional  limitations  designed  effectively\t  to<br \/>\nachieve its object and purpose, the construction of cl. (c),<br \/>\nin  our\t view, must be restricted as  just  explained,\tsuch<br \/>\nrestricted  construction being admissible on  the  statutory<br \/>\nlanguage  and the legislative scheme.  On this\tconstruction<br \/>\nthe challenge must fail.\n<\/p>\n<p>Before concluding we may mention that originally this appeal<br \/>\nwas  heard by a Bench of five Judges, including our  learned<br \/>\nbrother\t late  Mr. Justice S.C. Roy and\t before\t his  sudden<br \/>\ntragic\tdeath  he  had\texpressed  his\tagreement  with\t our<br \/>\ndecision  and approved the draft  judgment.   Unfortunately,<br \/>\nbefore\tthe  judgment could be announced the cruel  hand  of<br \/>\ndeath  snatched him away from our midst.  This\tappeal\twas,<br \/>\nhowever,  again formally placed,for rehearing  this  morning<br \/>\nbefore us.\n<\/p>\n<p>The  result  is that these appeals must be allowed  and\t the<br \/>\njudgment  of the High Court set aside.\tAs the\tcounsel\t for<br \/>\nthe  respondents state that there are some other  points  on<br \/>\nthe  merits which require determination, the writ  petitions<br \/>\nwill now be heard and disposed of by the High Court on those<br \/>\npoints.\n<\/p>\n<p>G.C.\n<\/p>\n<p>Appeals allowed.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">447<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India State Of West Bengal vs Ashok Dey &amp; Ors. Etc. Etc on 19 November, 1971 Equivalent citations: 1972 AIR 1660, 1972 SCR (2) 434 Author: I Dua Bench: Dua, I.D. PETITIONER: STATE OF WEST BENGAL Vs. RESPONDENT: ASHOK DEY &amp; ORS. ETC. ETC. DATE OF JUDGMENT19\/11\/1971 BENCH: DUA, I.D. BENCH: DUA, [&hellip;]<\/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-97439","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>State Of West Bengal vs Ashok Dey &amp; Ors. Etc. Etc on 19 November, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/state-of-west-bengal-vs-ashok-dey-ors-etc-etc-on-19-november-1971\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of West Bengal vs Ashok Dey &amp; Ors. Etc. Etc on 19 November, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-west-bengal-vs-ashok-dey-ors-etc-etc-on-19-november-1971\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1971-11-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-04-10T23:25:16+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=\"29 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-west-bengal-vs-ashok-dey-ors-etc-etc-on-19-november-1971#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-west-bengal-vs-ashok-dey-ors-etc-etc-on-19-november-1971\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of West Bengal vs Ashok Dey &amp; Ors. Etc. Etc on 19 November, 1971\",\"datePublished\":\"1971-11-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-10T23:25:16+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-west-bengal-vs-ashok-dey-ors-etc-etc-on-19-november-1971\"},\"wordCount\":4573,\"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\\\/state-of-west-bengal-vs-ashok-dey-ors-etc-etc-on-19-november-1971#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-west-bengal-vs-ashok-dey-ors-etc-etc-on-19-november-1971\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-west-bengal-vs-ashok-dey-ors-etc-etc-on-19-november-1971\",\"name\":\"State Of West Bengal vs Ashok Dey &amp; Ors. Etc. Etc on 19 November, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1971-11-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-10T23:25:16+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-west-bengal-vs-ashok-dey-ors-etc-etc-on-19-november-1971#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-west-bengal-vs-ashok-dey-ors-etc-etc-on-19-november-1971\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-west-bengal-vs-ashok-dey-ors-etc-etc-on-19-november-1971#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of West Bengal vs Ashok Dey &amp; Ors. Etc. Etc on 19 November, 1971\"}]},{\"@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":"State Of West Bengal vs Ashok Dey &amp; Ors. Etc. Etc on 19 November, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/state-of-west-bengal-vs-ashok-dey-ors-etc-etc-on-19-november-1971","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of West Bengal vs Ashok Dey &amp; Ors. Etc. Etc on 19 November, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-west-bengal-vs-ashok-dey-ors-etc-etc-on-19-november-1971","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1971-11-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-04-10T23:25:16+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":"29 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-west-bengal-vs-ashok-dey-ors-etc-etc-on-19-november-1971#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-west-bengal-vs-ashok-dey-ors-etc-etc-on-19-november-1971"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of West Bengal vs Ashok Dey &amp; Ors. Etc. Etc on 19 November, 1971","datePublished":"1971-11-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-10T23:25:16+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-west-bengal-vs-ashok-dey-ors-etc-etc-on-19-november-1971"},"wordCount":4573,"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\/state-of-west-bengal-vs-ashok-dey-ors-etc-etc-on-19-november-1971#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-west-bengal-vs-ashok-dey-ors-etc-etc-on-19-november-1971","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-west-bengal-vs-ashok-dey-ors-etc-etc-on-19-november-1971","name":"State Of West Bengal vs Ashok Dey &amp; Ors. Etc. Etc on 19 November, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1971-11-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-10T23:25:16+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-west-bengal-vs-ashok-dey-ors-etc-etc-on-19-november-1971#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-west-bengal-vs-ashok-dey-ors-etc-etc-on-19-november-1971"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-west-bengal-vs-ashok-dey-ors-etc-etc-on-19-november-1971#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of West Bengal vs Ashok Dey &amp; Ors. Etc. Etc on 19 November, 1971"}]},{"@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\/97439","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=97439"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/97439\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=97439"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=97439"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=97439"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}