9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Detention under Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 based on preventing prejudicial activities. Violation of constitutional safeguard in Article 22, Clause (5) and Section 8 of the Act due to undisclosed grounds forming the basis of detention. Analysis: The petitioner was detained under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 by the District Magistrate based on the necessity to prevent prejudicial activities. The detention order was made on the ground that the petitioner's actions were prejudicial to the maintenance of essential supplies and services to the community. The petitioner challenged the detention on the basis that undisclosed grounds forming the basis of detention violated the constitutional safeguard in Article 22, Clause (5) and Section 8 of the Act. The petitioner argued that the District Magistrate considered additional circumstances, such as the petitioner being a notorious anti-social element involved in theft of copper feeder wires, which were not communicated to the petitioner, depriving him of the opportunity to make a representation against them. The petitioner contended that failure to disclose all factual components forming the real grounds for detention violated the statutory safeguard under Section 8 of the Act and the constitutional guarantee under Article 22, Clause (5). The Supreme Court reiterated previous decisions emphasizing that if all relevant facts are not communicated to the detainee, the detention order would be invalid. The court examined whether additional facts beyond the single incident communicated to the petitioner were considered by the District Magistrate in forming the detention order. The court analyzed the nature of the incident involving theft of copper return feeder wire, resulting in the death of an associate and disruption of railway services. The court noted that such an act required technical skill and expertise, suggesting an organized activity with serious consequences. The court concluded that the additional circumstance of the petitioner being a notorious anti-social element involved in theft of copper feeder wires was an elaboration of the incident communicated to the petitioner. The court held that the District Magistrate did not rely on undisclosed grounds and did not violate the statutory provision or constitutional safeguard. The petitioner's sole contention regarding the undisclosed grounds forming the basis of detention was dismissed by the court. The petition was deemed to lack substance, and the rule was discharged, resulting in the dismissal of the petition.
|
