1989 (9) TMI 381 - SC - Indian Laws

Detention of the petitioner - a detenu under s. 3(2) of the National Security Act 1980 challenged - Held that - Appeal allowed. It has to be borne in mind that if more than one grounds are stated in the grounds then the fact that one of the grounds is bad would not alter order of detention after the amendment of the Act in 1984 provided the other grounds were valid. But quite apart from the same it appears to us that none of the grounds were vague. The grounds must be understood in the light of the background and the context of the facts. It was quite clear what the detaining authorities were trying to convey was that the petitioner stated things of the nature and it was to teach Hindus a lesson. Hence it was meant to create communal tension. We find no irrelevancy or vagueness in the grounds. On this ground the challenge cannot be sustained. However in the view taken by us on the first ground the order of detention must be quashed and set aside. We order accordingly. Let the petitioner be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required for any other offence under any other Act

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Delay in arresting the petitioner.
2. Relevance of the grounds to maintenance of public order.
3. Vagueness and unintelligibility of the grounds.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Delay in arresting the petitioner:

The petitioner challenged the detention order under Article 32 of the Constitution, arguing that there was an inordinate delay in his arrest, which indicated that the order was not based on a bona fide and genuine belief. The detention order was issued on April 15, 1988, but the petitioner was arrested only on October 2, 1988. The authorities claimed that multiple raids were conducted to arrest the petitioner, but he was absconding. However, the Court found that there were unexplained gaps in the efforts to arrest the petitioner, particularly from April 15, 1988, to May 12, 1988, and from September 29, 1988, to October 2, 1988. The Court emphasized that preventive detention requires prompt action to prevent the individual from acting in a manner prejudicial to public order. The unexplained delay indicated that the authorities were not genuinely satisfied that the preventive detention was necessary. The Court referred to previous judgments, including Nizamuddin v. The State of West Bengal, to support the view that unexplained delay undermines the genuine satisfaction of the detaining authority. Consequently, the Court concluded that the delay was unreasonable and the detention order was not based on a real and genuine apprehension.

2. Relevance of the grounds to maintenance of public order:

The petitioner argued that the grounds for detention were not germane to the maintenance of public order. The grounds included allegations that the petitioner criticized the police and administration, which the petitioner contended were issues of law and order, not public order. The Court examined whether the grounds had a rational nexus with the satisfaction that public order was prejudiced. The Court referenced previous cases, including The State of Gujarat v. Adam Kasam Bhaya, to highlight the difference between public order and law and order. The Court noted that actions undermining public faith in the police during high tensions affect public order. Therefore, the Court rejected the contention that the grounds were irrelevant for the detention order.

3. Vagueness and unintelligibility of the grounds:

The petitioner contended that the grounds for detention were vague and unintelligible, arguing that it was unclear what the petitioner said, to whom the rumors were spread, and what "other provoking things" were mentioned. The Court emphasized that grounds must be understood in the context of the facts and the background. It found that the grounds were clear in conveying that the petitioner aimed to create communal tension by making provocative statements. The Court noted that even if one ground is bad, the detention order can still stand if other grounds are valid, as per the amendment of the Act in 1984. However, the Court found no vagueness or irrelevancy in the grounds and rejected this contention.

Conclusion:

The Court quashed and set aside the detention order primarily due to the unexplained delay in arresting the petitioner, which indicated a lack of genuine and real satisfaction by the detaining authority. The petitioner was ordered to be set at liberty forthwith unless required for any other offense under any other Act.