1951 (1) TMI 33 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the detention order under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950.
2. Vagueness of the grounds for detention.
3. Whether supplementary grounds can be furnished after the initial grounds are provided.
4. Compliance with Article 22(5) and (6) of the Constitution of India.
5. Justiciability of the grounds of detention.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Detention Order under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950:
The respondent was detained under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950. The High Court of Bombay ordered his release, stating that the grounds for detention were vague and did not enable the detainee to make a proper representation, thus violating Article 22(5) of the Constitution.

2. Vagueness of the Grounds for Detention:
The respondent argued that the grounds provided were "delightfully vague" and lacked specific details about the alleged acts of sabotage, such as when, where, or what kind of sabotage was promoted. The Supreme Court emphasized that the grounds must be sufficiently clear to enable the detainee to make a representation. If the grounds are vague, it can render the detention order invalid as it fails to meet the requirement of Article 22(5).

3. Whether Supplementary Grounds Can Be Furnished After the Initial Grounds Are Provided:
The High Court held that it was impermissible for the detaining authority to justify the detention by amplifying and improving the grounds originally furnished. The Supreme Court, however, clarified that while new grounds cannot be added after the initial communication, supplementary details that relate to the original grounds can be provided. The Court stated, "The expression 'additional grounds' seems likely to lead to confusion of thought."

4. Compliance with Article 22(5) and (6) of the Constitution of India:
Article 22(5) mandates that the grounds for detention must be communicated to the detainee "as soon as may be" and that the detainee must be afforded the "earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order." Article 22(6) allows the detaining authority to withhold facts that are against the public interest. The Supreme Court held that the grounds must be communicated in a manner that enables the detainee to make a representation, but the authority is not required to disclose all facts, especially those withheld in the public interest.

5. Justiciability of the Grounds of Detention:
The Supreme Court reiterated that the satisfaction of the detaining authority is subjective and cannot be questioned in a court of law unless there is evidence of mala fides. The Court stated, "It is not for the court to sit in the place of the Central Government or the State Government and try to determine if it would have come to the same conclusion." However, the Court can examine whether the grounds are relevant to the object of the legislation and whether they are sufficiently clear to enable the detainee to make a representation.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the High Court erred in summarily rejecting the supplementary communication of grounds. The Court emphasized that while new grounds cannot be added, supplementary details related to the original grounds can be provided to enable the detainee to make a representation. The Court also clarified that the satisfaction of the detaining authority is subjective and not subject to judicial review, except on grounds of mala fides.