1974 (11) TMI 90 - SC - Indian Laws

Validity of the detention of the petitioner under an order of detention dated 3rd November, 1973 passed by the District Magistrate, Malda under sub-section (1) read with subsection (2) of section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 challenged Held that - Appeal dismissed. The material from the history-sbeet, which was not disclosed to the petitioner, did not form part of the grounds of detention on which the order of detention was made by the District Magistrate and approved by the State Government, but merely constituted other particulars communicated by the District Magistrate to the State Government under section 3, sub-section (3). There was, therefore, no obligation on the District Magistrate or the State Government to disclose this material to the petitioner and the nondisclosure of which to the petitioner did not have the effect of invalidating the approval of the State Government to the order of detention.

Issues Involved:
1. Sufficiency of grounds for detention.
2. Subjective satisfaction versus objective standards in detention.
3. Impact of undisclosed material on the validity of detention.
4. Validity of the State Government's approval of the detention order.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Sufficiency of Grounds for Detention:
The petitioner challenged the detention order dated 3rd November 1973, arguing that the three incidents of theft cited were not sufficient to justify the detention. The court noted that the power of detention is preventive and based on suspicion or anticipation rather than proof. The court emphasized that the satisfaction required for detention is subjective and not subject to objective standards. The court concluded that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority, based on the three incidents, was sufficient for the detention order.

2. Subjective Satisfaction versus Objective Standards:
The petitioner argued that if the power of detention is exercised based solely on subjective satisfaction, it imposes unreasonable restrictions on fundamental rights under Article 19 and is ultra vires. The court reiterated that the power of detention is based on subjective satisfaction due to its preventive nature. The court highlighted that subjective satisfaction is not immune from judicial review, and courts can examine whether the satisfaction was genuinely arrived at. The court concluded that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority was valid and not subject to objective standards.

3. Impact of Undisclosed Material on the Validity of Detention:
The petitioner contended that the history-sheet containing additional material was before the District Magistrate and influenced the detention order, but this material was not disclosed to the petitioner. The court emphasized that all basic facts and materials influencing the detaining authority must be communicated to the detenu. However, the court found that the undisclosed material in the history-sheet did not constitute additional prejudicial material and was merely a generalization based on the three incidents. Therefore, the non-disclosure did not invalidate the detention order.

4. Validity of the State Government's Approval of the Detention Order:
The petitioner argued that the State Government's approval of the detention order was based on undisclosed material from the history-sheet. The court noted that the State Government must consider all basic facts and materials constituting the grounds of detention for approval. However, the court found that the undisclosed material was not part of the grounds of detention but merely "other particulars" communicated by the District Magistrate. The court concluded that there was no obligation to disclose these "other particulars" to the detenu, and the State Government's approval was valid.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petition, affirming that the detention order was valid, the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority was justified, and the non-disclosure of certain material did not invalidate the detention or the State Government's approval. The petition was dismissed, and the rule was discharged.

← Previous Next →