1982 (8) TMI 220 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Vagueness of the Grounds of Detention
2. Distinction between Law and Order and Public Order

Detailed Analysis:

1. Vagueness of the Grounds of Detention:
The appellant challenged the detention order on the grounds that the grounds of detention were vague and did not relate to public order but rather to a law and order situation. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, but the appellant was granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court examined whether the first paragraph of the grounds of detention was merely introductory or constituted the grounds for detention. The Court noted that if the first paragraph were considered as grounds, it was indeed vague and would invalidate the detention order. However, the Court concluded that the first paragraph was merely introductory, providing context to the specific allegations in the subsequent paragraphs.

The Court emphasized that the grounds of detention must provide sufficient particulars to enable the detenu to make an effective representation. The Court found that paragraphs 2 and 3, which detailed specific incidents involving the appellant, were clear and specific enough to inform the appellant of the allegations against him. The Court rejected the appellant's contention that these paragraphs were vague, noting that the basic facts were provided, allowing the appellant to make an effective representation.

2. Distinction between Law and Order and Public Order:
The appellant argued that the facts alleged in the grounds of detention pertained to law and order rather than public order. The Court reiterated the distinction between the two concepts, emphasizing that public order involves a disorder of a grave nature affecting the community at large, while law and order pertains to individual acts of lesser gravity.

The Court noted the grave situation in Assam due to the ongoing agitation on the issue of foreigners, which had taken a serious turn. The Court concluded that the activities attributed to the appellant, as detailed in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the grounds of detention, related to the maintenance of public order in the context of the prevailing circumstances in Assam.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's decision. The Court found that the grounds of detention were not vague and related to public order, thereby justifying the detention under the National Security Act. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.