1984 (4) TMI 311 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of the provisions of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981.
2. Effect of the order of grant of bail in the criminal proceeding arising out of the incident constituting one of the grounds of detention.
3. Whether the petitioner is an "anti-social element" as defined u/s 2(d) of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981.
4. Validity of the detention order passed u/s 12(2) of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981.

Summary:

1. Interpretation of the Provisions of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981:
The majority opinion held that preventive detention is not beyond judicial scrutiny and that relevancy and proximity are grounds of challenge. The court emphasized that the Constitution incorporates safeguards against the undue exercise of the power to detain without trial. The legislature is required to make laws circumscribing the limits within which persons may be preventively detained, and courts are required to examine whether these limits have been transgressed.

2. Effect of the Order of Grant of Bail:
The majority opinion concurred that the grant of bail does not preclude the passing of a detention order if the detaining authority is satisfied that the detention is necessary to prevent the individual from acting in a manner prejudicial to public order. The court noted that the detaining authority must have a rational basis for its subjective satisfaction, and the adequacy or sufficiency of the grounds is not for the court to decide.

3. Whether the Petitioner is an "Anti-Social Element":
The court examined the definition of "anti-social element" u/s 2(d) of the Act, which includes habitual commission of offenses under specific chapters of the Indian Penal Code. The majority opinion held that the term "habitually" implies repeated or persistent acts, and a single act cannot constitute habitual behavior. The court found that the incidents cited by the District Magistrate were not sufficient to classify the petitioner as an "anti-social element" because they were either too remote or not of the same kind.

4. Validity of the Detention Order:
The majority opinion quashed the detention order, holding that the petitioner could not be considered an "anti-social element" as defined by the Act. The court emphasized that preventive detention laws should be strictly construed and should not be used to circumvent the ordinary criminal process. The court also noted that the petitioner had been granted bail by a competent criminal court and that the grounds for detention did not meet the legal requirements.

Separate Judgment by Sen, J.:
Sen, J., dissented, arguing that the petitioner did meet the definition of an "anti-social element" and that the detention order was justified. He emphasized that the word "habitually" should not be narrowly construed and that the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction should not be lightly interfered with by the courts. Sen, J., would have dismissed the writ petition and upheld the detention order.

Conclusion:
The majority opinion allowed the petition and directed the petitioner to be set at liberty forthwith, quashing the detention order as it did not meet the statutory requirements for preventive detention under the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981.