2013 (2) TMI 189 - SC - Indian Laws

Preventive Detention order - Held that - If the ordinary law of the land (the Penal Code and other penal statutes) can deal with a situation, recourse to a preventive detention law will be illegal. There seems to be conflict between the decisions cited by Mr. K.K. Mani, learned counsel appearing for some of the appellants, and the decisions cited by Mr. Altaf Ahmed, learned senior counsel l appearing for the State of Tamil Nadu. Hence, the matter should be considered by a larger bench for resolving this difference of opinion.

Summary

Issues:
Detention order under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1982; Conflict of opinion on legality of detention order due to pending bail application and detenue already being in jail; Interpretation of previous judgments regarding legality of detention orders in similar cases; Need for resolution of conflicting opinions by a larger bench.

Analysis:
The Supreme Court heard the counsel for the parties and granted leave to appeal against the impugned judgment of the High Court of Madras. The appeals were filed challenging the detention order under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1982. The counsel for the appellants argued that the detention order was illegal as there was no pending bail application when the order was passed, and the appellant was already in jail in a criminal case on the same facts, making his release unlikely. This raised a conflict of opinion, with previous judgments cited to support both sides of the argument.

The counsel for the appellants relied on judgments stating that if no bail application was pending and the detenue was already in jail in a criminal case, the detention order would be illegal. On the other hand, the State of Tamil Nadu's counsel cited judgments where the grant of bail in similar cases was considered a valid ground for the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction to pass the detention order. The conflicting interpretations of these judgments led to the conclusion that the matter required consideration by a larger bench to resolve the difference of opinion.

Therefore, the Supreme Court decided to place the papers of the appeals before the Chief Justice of India for constituting a larger bench. This decision was crucial as the period of detention was expiring soon, and without a resolution, the appeals would become infructuous. Any requests for temporary relief were directed to be made before the larger bench once constituted, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive review and clarification of the legal principles involved in the conflicting judgments.