9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Constitutionality of the Orissa Preventive Detention Act, 1970. 2. Vagueness and irrelevance of the grounds of detention. 3. Consideration of the petitioners' representation by the State Government. Detailed Analysis: 1. Constitutionality of the Orissa Preventive Detention Act, 1970: The petitioners argued that the Orissa Preventive Detention Act, 1970, violated their rights under Article 19(a), (b), (c), and (d) of the Constitution. However, the Court did not address this issue as it found merit in the other grounds raised by the petitioners. 2. Vagueness and Irrelevance of the Grounds of Detention: The petitioners contended that some of the grounds of detention were vague and irrelevant to the maintenance of public order. The Court scrutinized the grounds to ensure they were sufficient to enable the detenues to make an effective representation and were relevant to the maintenance of public order. - Ground No. 2: Alleged that the petitioners instigated other under-trial prisoners to disobey jail rules and demand inadmissible facilities. The Court found this ground vague and irrelevant as it did not specify which jail rules were disobeyed or what inadmissible demands were made. This ground was not relevant to the maintenance of public order. - Ground No. 3: Claimed that the petitioners demanded a separate cooking mess inside the jail, causing annoyance and disturbances. The Court found this ground irrelevant to the maintenance of public order. - Ground No. 4: Alleged that the petitioners instigated other prisoners to help two inmates escape from jail. The Court found this ground irrelevant to the maintenance of public order. - Ground No. 8: Stated that the petitioners quarrelled with other convicts over the issue of ration, leading to a clash. The Court found this ground irrelevant to the maintenance of public order. - Ground No. 9: Claimed that the petitioners shouted slogans like "Naxalite Zindabad" and "Long Live Revolution," creating a sensation in the minds of the public. The Court found that shouting slogans might disturb law and order but would not create public disorder. - Ground No. 14: Vaguely mentioned that there was talk in certain areas that the petitioners had sent intimation to their supporters to remain prepared for an armed struggle. The Court found this ground vague and insufficient for the petitioners to make an effective representation. The Court concluded that several grounds were either vague or irrelevant, and since they influenced the authority's mind in passing the detention order, it could not be upheld. 3. Consideration of the Petitioners' Representation by the State Government: The petitioners argued that their representation to the State Government was not considered. The Court noted that the representation was received by the Government on 17-5-1971, but there was no evidence that it had been considered. The Government's failure to consider the representation violated the principles established in Jayanarayan Sukul v. State of W.B., which require the appropriate authority to consider the representation independently and without delay. The Court emphasized that the Government must exercise its opinion and judgment on the representation before sending the case to the Advisory Board. Since the Government did not consider the representation either when it was received or at the time of confirming the detention order, the detention became illegal. Conclusion: The Court declared the detention of the petitioners illegal on the grounds of vagueness and irrelevance of the detention grounds and the State Government's failure to consider the petitioners' representation. The petitioners were already directed to be released after the closure of arguments in the case.
|
