1987 (11) TMI 370 - SC - Indian Laws

Detention orders - Held that - Appeal dismissed. The impugned order of detention was clamped on 28th November, 1985 and the period of one year as provided in Section 13 of the National Security Act has also expired. Moreover, as already upheld the finding of the High Court that the order of detention is illegal and bad for non-supply of vital documents to the detenus to enable them to make an effective representation against the grounds of detention and as such their right to make an effective representation as contemplated under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India has been infringed rendering the impugned order as illegal and bad. Furthermore, the nonproduction of relevant materials i.e. the statement of the under-trial prisoners in their application in the court that the detenus had been falsely implicated in the crime case No. 450 of 1985 under section 307;34 I.P.C. and also the statement to that effect in the bail petition and the police report thereon, before the detaining authority for his consideration before passing the order of detention, renders the order of detention invalid and illegal.

Issues Involved:
1. Non-supply of relevant documents to the detenus.
2. Distinction between "law and order" and "public order."
3. Non-consideration of relevant materials by the detaining authority.
4. Impact of incidents on public order.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Non-supply of relevant documents to the detenus:
The petitioners contended that they were not provided with the necessary documents to make an effective representation against their detention under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980. Specifically, they were only supplied with the First Information Reports (FIRs) and extracts of the charge-sheets but not the statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The High Court upheld this contention, stating that the detenus were denied a fair and reasonable opportunity to represent against the order of detention, rendering the detention order vitiated. The Supreme Court agreed with this finding, noting that the non-supply of vital materials infringed the detenus' rights under Article 22(5) of the Constitution, making the detention order illegal and bad.

2. Distinction between "law and order" and "public order":
The High Court found that the incidents mentioned in grounds 1 and 2 pertained to law and order rather than public order. The Supreme Court upheld this view for ground 1 but disagreed regarding ground 2. The Court cited previous judgments, including Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar and Ors., to explain that public order affects the community at large, while law and order pertains to specific individuals. The Supreme Court held that the incident in ground 1 was a private crime and did not disturb the even tempo of the community's life. However, the incident in ground 2, involving a public shooting, did affect public order due to its potential to disturb public tranquility and the even tempo of life in the locality.

3. Non-consideration of relevant materials by the detaining authority:
The petitioners argued that relevant materials, such as an application by three under-trials and statements in their bail applications, were not placed before the detaining authority. The High Court agreed, stating that the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction was not properly formed due to the non-consideration of these materials. The Supreme Court upheld this finding, emphasizing that all vital materials must be placed before the detaining authority to enable a proper subjective satisfaction as required under the Act. This was in line with previous decisions, including Asha Devi v. K Shivraj and Gurdip Singh v. Union of India.

4. Impact of incidents on public order:
The Supreme Court analyzed the three incidents cited as grounds for detention:
- Ground 1: The murder of Vishnu Narain Awasthi was deemed a private crime that did not affect public order.
- Ground 2: The shooting of Ram Kumar in a public street during the day was found to affect public order due to its potential to disturb public tranquility and the even tempo of life in the locality.
- Ground 3: The firing at Vijay Pratap Singh in the court compound was determined to affect public order, as it created panic and terror in the minds of those present, disturbing the even tempo of life in the community.

The Supreme Court concluded that the detention order was invalid due to the non-supply of vital documents and the non-consideration of relevant materials by the detaining authority. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

← Previous Next →