1989 (7) TMI 335 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to the legality and validity of the impugned order of detention under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985. Consideration of previous detention orders in forming subjective satisfaction for the current detention order. Non-disclosure of names and addresses of witnesses in the grounds of detention. Vagueness of statements in the grounds of detention regarding alleged criminal activities of the detenu.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the legality and validity of the detention order made under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985. The main contention was that the detaining authority considered previous detention orders along with new facts to justify the current detention, which allegedly vitiated the order. The petitioner argued that non-disclosure of names and addresses of witnesses and the vagueness of statements in the grounds of detention hindered effective representation against the order.

The grounds of detention accused the petitioner of engaging in anti-social activities related to selling and stocking liquor, using deadly weapons, and creating a threatening atmosphere in a specific locality. The detaining authority referenced the petitioner's past detention orders under different acts, which the petitioner contended influenced the current decision. The petitioner also raised concerns about the lack of specific details in the grounds of detention, affecting the ability to provide a meaningful representation.

In response, the Commissioner of Police denied the allegations, stating that the current detention order was based on fresh grounds unrelated to previous orders. The Commissioner argued that the earlier detention orders were passed due to public riots and the petitioner's involvement in criminal activities. The detaining authority maintained that the previous orders were considered but not determinative in issuing the current detention order.

The Supreme Court examined the legality of considering previous detention orders in forming subjective satisfaction for the current order. Referring to relevant case law, the Court emphasized that the inclusion of previous grounds of detention, even if quashed, could vitiate the current order. The Court found the vagueness of statements in the grounds of detention problematic, as they hindered effective representation by the detenu.

Ultimately, the Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned detention order and directing the release of the petitioner. The decision highlighted the importance of clear and specific grounds for detention, ensuring the detainee's right to a fair representation and legal process.