1982 (5) TMI 187 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Denial of constitutional imperatives of Art. 22(5) read with s. 8 of the National Security Act, 1980.
2. Failure to specify the period of detention in the detention order.
3. Whether the grounds of detention relate to "maintenance of public order" or "maintenance of law and order".
4. Sufficiency and clarity of the grounds of detention for forming the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority.

Summary:

1. Denial of Constitutional Imperatives of Art. 22(5) read with s. 8 of the Act:
The petitioner contended that there was a denial of constitutional imperatives due to an unexplained delay of two days in furnishing the grounds of detention. The Court held that the language of Art. 22(5) and s. 8 of the Act allows for the grounds to be communicated "as soon as may be," normally within five days, and in exceptional circumstances, within ten days. The detenu was served within two days, which was within the permissible period, thus complying with the constitutional safeguards.

2. Failure to Specify the Period of Detention:
The petitioner argued that the failure to specify the period of detention rendered the order invalid. The Court referred to the majority decision in A.K. Roy v. Union of India, stating that there is no duty on the detaining authority to specify the period of detention while making the order. The Act does not require the period of detention to be specified in the initial order, and the period must vary according to the exigencies of each case.

3. Grounds of Detention Relating to "Public Order" or "Law and Order":
The petitioner contended that the grounds of detention related to "maintenance of law and order" rather than "maintenance of public order." The Court distinguished between the two concepts, stating that the potentiality of the act to disturb the even tempo of the life of the community determines whether it affects public order. The Court found that the detenu's activities, including theft, robbery, and use of firearms, created a wave of terror affecting public order, justifying the detention under sub-s. (2) of s. 3 of the Act.

4. Sufficiency and Clarity of Grounds of Detention:
The petitioner argued that the grounds of detention were vague, irrelevant, and lacked particulars. The Court reviewed the grounds and the accompanying chart of 36 cases, concluding that they were neither vague nor irrelevant and provided sufficient nexus for the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction.

Conclusion:
The petition was dismissed, with the Court finding no merit in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner. The detention order was upheld as valid and in compliance with the constitutional and statutory requirements.