1988 (5) TMI 362 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Delay in making the detention order.
2. Non-application of mind by the detaining authority.
3. Lack of certainty and precision in the purpose of detention.
4. Delay in disposal of the representation made by the appellant.

Summary:

Issue 1: Delay in making the detention order:
The appellant contended that the unexplained delay of five months in making the detention order vitiated its validity. The Supreme Court emphasized that preventive detention without trial is inconsistent with personal liberty and must adhere to procedural safeguards u/s 22(5) of the Constitution. The Court noted that while there was a delay between 2nd February and 28th May 1987, it did not necessarily imply the grounds were stale or illusory. The delay was justified by the need for thorough investigation and the procedural steps involved in preventive detention cases. The Court cited previous judgments to support the view that delay alone does not invalidate a detention order unless it breaks the causal connection between the grounds and the order.

Issue 2: Non-application of mind by the detaining authority:
The appellant argued that the detaining authority did not apply its mind, as there was no awareness of the appellant's anticipatory bail application. The Court found that the grounds for detention, including two earlier incidents and the appellant's continued illicit activities, were sufficient to justify the detention. The District Magistrate was aware of the appellant's anticipatory bail application and subsequent arrest, indicating no lack of awareness or non-application of mind.

Issue 3: Lack of certainty and precision in the purpose of detention:
The appellant contended that the detention order lacked precision, as it mentioned multiple purposes like public peace, public health, and anti-national activities. The Court held that the primary purpose was to prevent the appellant from acting prejudicially to public order, as defined u/s 3(4) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985. The additional verbiage was deemed unnecessary but not consequential enough to invalidate the order.

Issue 4: Delay in disposal of the representation made by the appellant:
The appellant claimed there was a delay in disposing of his representation to the State Government. The Court found this contention to be misconceived, noting that the representation made on 8th June 1987 was promptly considered and rejected by the State Government on 12th June 1987, indicating no inordinate delay.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and the writ petition, upholding the detention order as valid and constitutionally permissible.