1986 (9) TMI 407 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the detention order u/s 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980.
2. Validity of grounds for detention.
3. Procedural safeguards and their compliance.
4. Relevance of pending criminal cases and acquittals in the context of preventive detention.
5. Application of the Prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980.

Summary:

Legality of the Detention Order:
The detenu was detained by an order dated 16th December 1985, u/s 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980, which was approved by the State of Maharashtra on 24th December 1985. The grounds for detention were served on the detenu on 17th December 1985. The detenu was alleged to have been engaging in acts prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community since 1979, including theft of railway materials.

Validity of Grounds for Detention:
The grounds for detention included six different criminal cases involving theft and unlawful possession of railway property. The detenu was either acquitted or the cases were pending. The detaining authority considered these grounds individually and collectively sufficient to justify the detention to prevent the detenu from acting prejudicially to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community.

Procedural Safeguards and Their Compliance:
The detenu was informed of his right to make a representation to the State Government and the Advisory Board. The Advisory Board reviewed the case and submitted its report within the stipulated period. The procedural safeguards provided by law were duly followed, and the detention order was confirmed by the State Government.

Relevance of Pending Criminal Cases and Acquittals:
The petitioner argued that the grounds for detention were vague, irrelevant, and based on past incidents dating back to 1979. It was contended that the detaining authority could not substitute judicial judgment with preventive detention. The court held that preventive detention could be justified even if the detenu was on bail, acquitted, or had pending cases, provided there was a rational connection between the grounds and the purpose of detention.

Application of the Prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980:
The petitioner argued that the grounds did not involve any violation of the Essential Commodities Act or Maintenance of Essential Services Act. The court held that the National Security Act was applicable as the detenu's activities were prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community in general, and not specifically under the Prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the detention order, finding that the grounds for detention were relevant and had a rational connection with the purpose of the National Security Act. The procedural safeguards were duly followed, and the detaining authority's satisfaction was bona fide. The petitions were dismissed.