2013 (7) TMI 551 - SC - Indian Laws

Damages for detention - whether the appellant was entitled for any damage for having detained for around two months u/s 3(2) of the Tamil Nadu Act - Held that - respondents have failed to bring on record the evidence to show that the appellant was engaged or was making preparations for engaging in any of his activities as a Goonda which may affect or are likely to affect adversely the maintenance of public order - there was nothing on record to suggest that the appellant by himself or as a member of or leader of a gang habitually committed or attempted to commit or abetted the commission of offence - there was no sufficient cause for detention of the appellant- there was nothing on the record to suggest that the appellant while in service took part in pro-police association activities or formed any association - there was nothing on the record to suggest that he formed another association after retirement - the respondents had failed to bring on record any evidence to suggest that the appellant incited the police personnel of Tamil Nadu to form an association to fight their rights against the Government - the respondents had also failed to bring on record that the appellant toured to various Districts and incited serving police personnel over forming an association in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. Personal liberty - Personal liberty is of the widest amplitude covering variety of rights - Its deprivation shall be only as per procedure prescribed in the Code and the Evidence Act conformable to the mandate of the Supreme Law, the Constitution - the investigator must be alive to the mandate of Constitution and is not empowered to trample upon the personal liberty of a person when he had acted by malafides as decided in State of Bihar and another vs. P.P. Sharma, IAS(1991 (4) TMI 365 - SUPREME COURT). Intention to form Association - whether the intention of the appellant was to form Association of Police force amounts to causing disaffection towards the Government established by law to attract Section 3 of Police (Incitement to Disaffection) Act, 1922 Held that - Respondent grossly abused legal power to punish the appellant to destroy his reputation in a manner non-oriented by law by detaining him under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 in lodging a Criminal Case No.11/98 under Section 3 of the Police (Incitement to Disaffection) Act, 1992 and under Section 505(1)(b) of the IPC based on the wrong statements which were fully unwarranted - Nothing had been brought to the notice of the Court to prove that the appellant with intent to cause fear or alarm to the public or to any section of the public or to induce to commit an offence against the S/G or against the public tranquility issued the press statement - for attracting the penalty under Section 3 for causing disaffection - it needs to be proved that the person concerned intentionally caused or attempted to cause or done any act which is likely to be disaffection towards the Government established by law in this country among the members of the Police force or induces or attempts to induce or does any act which he knows likely to induce any member of the Police force to withhold his service or committed breach of discipline.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Claim for Damages for Illegal Detention: Whether the appellant is entitled to damages for his alleged illegal detention.
2. Malafide Intention: Whether the respondents acted with malafide intention in detaining the appellant.
3. Legality of Detention Order: Whether the detention order under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 was justified.
4. Applicability of Relevant Laws: Whether the appellant's actions fell under the purview of Section 3 of the Police (Incitement to Disaffection) Act, 1922 and Section 505(1)(b) of the IPC.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Claim for Damages for Illegal Detention:
The appellant, a retired Inspector of Police, claimed damages of Rs.10,00,000 for his alleged illegal detention and confinement. He argued that his detention was based on a false case intended to destroy his reputation and image, causing him physical and mental suffering. The High Court dismissed his writ petition, stating that he failed to establish malafide intention on the part of the respondents. The Supreme Court examined whether the appellant was entitled to damages for being detained for around two months under Section 3(2) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 in Crime No.11/98.

2. Malafide Intention:
The appellant alleged that the detention order was issued with malafide intention by the respondents. The respondents, including the then Inspector General and Commissioner of Police, Salem City, and other police officials, claimed that the detention was based on legitimate grounds. The Supreme Court found that the respondents failed to provide sufficient evidence to support their claims and that the appellant's detention was based on facts that did not exist. The Court concluded that the respondents abused their power and position to support their unfair order, thereby justifying the appellant's allegation of malafide intention.

3. Legality of Detention Order:
The appellant was detained under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, which defines a "Goonda" and the conditions for detention. The Advisory Board, after reviewing the case, found no sufficient cause for the appellant's detention, leading to the revocation of the detention order by the Government of Tamil Nadu. The Supreme Court observed that the respondents failed to bring on record any evidence to show that the appellant was engaged in activities as a "Goonda" or that his actions affected public order. The Court held that the detention order was not justified and was based on non-existent facts, amounting to an abuse of power.

4. Applicability of Relevant Laws:
The appellant was charged under Section 3 of the Police (Incitement to Disaffection) Act, 1922, and Section 505(1)(b) of the IPC. The Supreme Court examined whether the appellant's press statement, which called for the formation of a police association, amounted to incitement or disaffection towards the government. The Court found that the press statement did not incite disaffection or induce police personnel to withhold their services. The Court also noted that the appellant's actions were in line with the Police-Forces (Restriction of Rights) Act, 1966, which allows for the formation of associations with government sanction. The Court concluded that the charges under the aforementioned sections were not applicable to the appellant's actions.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, finding that the respondents had grossly abused their legal power to punish the appellant and destroy his reputation. The Court imposed a cost of Rs.2 lacs on the State of Tamil Nadu to be paid to the appellant within two months. The judgment highlighted the importance of adhering to legal procedures and the protection of personal liberty.