1974 (10) TMI 106 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of a detention order served on a person in jail custody.
2. Legality of the detention order based on previous grounds.
3. Relevance and germane nature of the grounds for detention.

Analysis:

1. Validity of a Detention Order Served on a Person in Jail Custody:

The petitioner was detained under Section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971, by the District Magistrate, Jabalpur, to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The detention order was revoked, and the petitioner was released in September 1973. He was again arrested on January 25, 1974, under Section 151 of the CrPC and remanded to jail custody. The District Magistrate issued another detention order on January 28, 1974, served on the petitioner in jail. The petitioner argued that a detention order cannot be validly made and served upon a person in jail custody, citing Rameshwar Shaw v. District Magistrate Burdwan (1964) and Makhan Singh Tarsikka v. State of Punjab (1964).

The court clarified that these cases do not establish an absolute rule that a detention order cannot be made against a person in jail custody. The court referred to Masood Alam v. Union of India, where it was held that a detention order could be served on a person in jail if they are likely to be released soon and there is relevant material indicating they might act in a manner prejudicial to public order upon release. The court concluded that the petitioner's detention under Section 151, CrPC, was of short duration, and the detention order's service in jail did not invalidate it. The detaining authority's subjective satisfaction based on the petitioner's antecedent activities was reasonable.

2. Legality of the Detention Order Based on Previous Grounds:

The petitioner contended that the detention order was illegal because it relied on grounds from the previous detention order dated June 4, 1973, which had been revoked. The court examined the grounds and concluded that the paragraphs referred to by the petitioner were not the grounds for the current detention order but a narration of antecedents or past history. The actual grounds for the present detention were based on incidents that occurred after the previous detention order was revoked, specifically the events of January 23, 1974, which involved large-scale disturbances of public order instigated by the petitioner. Therefore, the court held that the previous grounds did not vitiate the current detention order.

3. Relevance and Germane Nature of the Grounds for Detention:

The petitioner argued that the matter mentioned in paragraph 10 of the Schedule was irrelevant and not germane to public order, claiming that organizing a Band or a hunger strike was innocuous and had no direct connection with public order. The court rejected this argument, stating that the contents of paragraph 10 must be read as part of a series of incidents enumerated in preceding paragraphs. The court emphasized that the petitioner was portrayed as the prime mover in activities leading to disturbances, violence, looting, and mischief. The detaining authority could reasonably gauge the petitioner's tendency to act in a manner prejudicial to public order based on these activities. The court found the particulars neither vague nor irrelevant to the detention's objective.

Conclusion:

The court dismissed the petition, upholding the validity of the detention order served on the petitioner in jail custody, rejecting the argument that the order was based on previous grounds, and affirming the relevance and germane nature of the grounds for detention.