9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Justification of detention under Section 3(1) of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950. 2. Validity of detention order passed while the petitioner was already in jail custody. 3. Allegations of mala fide intention and vagueness of grounds for detention. 4. Right to make an effective representation against the detention order. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Justification of Detention under Section 3(1) of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950: The main question raised was whether the order of detention served on the petitioner while he was in jail custody was justified under Section 3(1) of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950. The court noted that the District Magistrate, Burdwan, passed the detention order on February 9, 1963, to prevent the petitioner from acting in a manner prejudicial to public order. The grounds for detention included the petitioner's involvement in anti-social activities and disturbing public order. The court emphasized that the Act authorizes preventive detention without trial, thus its provisions must be strictly construed and all safeguards liberally interpreted. The court observed that the satisfaction of the detaining authority under Section 3(1)(a) is subjective and not justiciable in court. However, if the grounds for detention are irrelevant or vague, the detention order can be challenged. 2. Validity of Detention Order Passed While the Petitioner was Already in Jail Custody: The court addressed whether a person already in jail custody can be served with a detention order. The court reasoned that the authority must be satisfied that the person would act in a prejudicial manner if not detained, which presupposes the person's freedom of action. The court found it irrational to conclude that a person in jail custody could act prejudicially, thus invalidating the detention order. The court distinguished between cases where the detention order is served just before the person's release from short-term imprisonment and cases where the person is serving a long-term sentence, emphasizing the need for proximity in time and rational connection between past conduct and the detention order. 3. Allegations of Mala Fide Intention and Vagueness of Grounds for Detention: The petitioner's counsel argued that the detention order was mala fide, based on imaginary and non-existent grounds, and some grounds were vague and irrelevant. The court acknowledged that if the grounds for detention are irrelevant or vague, it could introduce a serious infirmity in the order. The court held that the satisfaction of the detaining authority, although subjective, could be challenged on grounds of mala fides if the grounds served on the detenu do not rationally support the conclusion drawn by the detaining authority. 4. Right to Make an Effective Representation Against the Detention Order: The petitioner contended that he was denied the opportunity to make an effective representation to the Advisory Board, introducing an infirmity in the detention order. The court did not delve into this argument as it found the first contention regarding the justification of detention under Section 3(1) well-founded. The court emphasized that the detenu must be given a fair opportunity to make a representation against the detention order, and any defect in the communication of grounds could affect this right. Conclusion: The court concluded that the detention of the petitioner was not justified under Section 3(1)(a) of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, as the petitioner was already in jail custody and could not act in a prejudicial manner. The District Magistrate, Burdwan, acted outside his powers conferred by the Act. The court set aside the detention order and directed the petitioner's immediate release. The petition was allowed.
|
