9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of grounds for preventive detention. 2. Distinction between public order and criminal law. 3. Procedural compliance and subjective satisfaction of detaining authorities. 4. Comparison with similar cases and potential discrimination. 5. Consideration of new evidence and second representation. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of Grounds for Preventive Detention: The petitioner, in a habeas corpus petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, sought release from detention ordered by the Commissioner of Police, Calcutta. The grounds supplied included incidents on September 5, 1973, and September 7, 1973, where the petitioner and associates allegedly created disturbances of public order by hurling bombs and causing widespread panic. The petitioner contended that the grounds of detention were "vague, false, mala fide, fanciful, non-existent" and lacked a rational nexus with permissible objects of preventive detention. 2. Distinction Between Public Order and Criminal Law: The petitioner argued that "public order" is more serious than mere breaches of criminal law and should be read in conjunction with "security of the State." The Court, referencing previous judgments, clarified that preventive detention is qualitatively different from punitive detention and can be based on instances of criminal activity that may or may not lead to successful prosecution. The Court emphasized that public order is an elastic concept, wider than the security of the State, and that the necessity to order detention must be reasonably made out. 3. Procedural Compliance and Subjective Satisfaction of Detaining Authorities: The Court examined the procedural history, noting that the petitioner was discharged by the Criminal Court on the same day the detention order was made. The grounds of detention were served promptly, and the case was reviewed by the Advisory Board, which found sufficient cause for detention. The Court emphasized that the subjective satisfaction of detaining authorities should not be substituted by the Court's opinion unless it is clear that no reasonable person could be satisfied about the need to detain on the given grounds. 4. Comparison with Similar Cases and Potential Discrimination: The petitioner highlighted that another individual, Kamal Singh alias Tiger, detained on identical grounds, was released after the Advisory Board found no sufficient cause for detention. The Court noted that the Advisory Board applied its mind to the petitioner's case, which it found distinguishable from Kamal Singh's case. The Court concluded that the Advisory Board's decision indicated a thorough and impartial consideration of the petitioner's case. 5. Consideration of New Evidence and Second Representation: The petitioner presented an affidavit from Lal Mohan Jadav, stating that the petitioner did not participate in the attack on his tea shop. The Court observed that this affidavit could not vitiate the initial detention order, as it was not available to the detaining authorities or the Advisory Board at the time of detention. The Court directed the State Government to consider the petitioner's second representation, emphasizing the need for a reasonable and judicious exercise of power under Section 14 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, which allows for revocation or modification of a detention order based on new or supervening conditions. Conclusion: The Court rejected the petitioner's prayer for quashing the detention order but directed the Government of West Bengal to consider the pending fresh representation of the petitioner in accordance with the requirements of law and justice. The petition was dismissed subject to this direction.
|
