1989 (3) TMI 390 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Non-application of mind by the detaining authority.
2. Validity of detention order under preventive detention laws.
3. Relevance and proximity of past conduct to the detention order.
4. Justification for detention while the detenu is already in custody.
5. Subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Non-application of mind by the detaining authority:
The petitioner challenged the detention order dated May 23, 1988, on grounds of absolute non-application of mind by the detaining authority. The detaining authority failed to consider that the detenu was continuously in custody from March 14, 1988, to April 13, 1988, and no prejudicial act was alleged during this period. The detaining authority also did not acknowledge that the Designated Court had denied bail to the detenu on May 13, 1988, making the possibility of his release on bail non-existent.

2. Validity of detention order under preventive detention laws:
The detenu had been subjected to multiple detention orders under various acts, including the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985, and the National Security Act. The detenu's detention was often challenged and quashed by higher courts, including the Supreme Court, due to procedural lapses and lack of fresh facts justifying the detention. The Supreme Court emphasized that preventive detention is a serious encroachment on personal freedom and must be based on proximate and relevant facts.

3. Relevance and proximity of past conduct to the detention order:
The detaining authority relied on three criminal cases (Case Nos. 372/85, 456/87, and 2/88) to justify the detention order. However, the Supreme Court found that these cases were not proximate in time to the detention order. Case No. 372/85 was lodged on June 26, 1985, and Case No. 456/87 on October 16, 1987, both of which were considered stale grounds. Case No. 2/88, registered on January 2, 1988, did not name the detenu in the FIR, and no fresh facts were presented to justify the detention.

4. Justification for detention while the detenu is already in custody:
The Supreme Court cited several precedents, including Rameshwar Shaw v. District Magistrate, Burdwan, and Alijan Mian v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad, to highlight that preventive detention while the detenu is already in custody requires the detaining authority to be aware of the custody status and present cogent, fresh facts necessitating detention. The Court found that the detaining authority in this case failed to demonstrate such awareness and fresh facts.

5. Subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority:
The Supreme Court scrutinized the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority, which is essential for a valid detention order. The Court found that the detaining authority's statement about the possibility of the detenu being released on bail was based on a lack of awareness of the actual custody status and absence of a bail application. This lack of awareness and reliance on stale grounds indicated that the subjective satisfaction was not based on relevant and proximate materials.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court quashed the detention order dated May 23, 1988, due to the detaining authority's failure to apply its mind, lack of fresh and proximate facts, and inadequate subjective satisfaction. The Court directed the respondents to set the detenu at liberty forthwith.