9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved
1. Validity of the detention order under the West Bengal (Prevention of Violent Activities) Act, 1970. 2. Use of disjunctive 'or' versus conjunctive 'and' in the detention order. 3. Application of mind by the detaining authority. 4. Definition and interpretation of "security of the State" and "maintenance of public order." Detailed Analysis 1. Validity of the Detention Order The primary issue was whether the detention order, which stated that it was made upon the satisfaction of the District Magistrate that the person concerned was acting in a manner prejudicial to the security of the State or the maintenance of public order, was lawfully made. The court examined the West Bengal (Prevention of Violent Activities) Act, 1970, particularly Section 3, which empowers the State Government to detain a person if it is satisfied that such detention is necessary to prevent the person from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State or the maintenance of public order. 2. Use of Disjunctive 'or' Versus Conjunctive 'and' The petitioner argued that the use of the disjunctive 'or' instead of the conjunctive 'and' in the detention order indicated that the detaining authority was uncertain under which of the two grounds-security of the State or maintenance of public order-it had reached its subjective satisfaction. The court noted that the disjunctive 'or' used in Section 3(1) of the Act must mean that the required satisfaction could be on one or the other ground, or even both. However, it was crucial for the detaining authority to clearly state whether its satisfaction was on one or both grounds to enable the detained person to make an effective representation. 3. Application of Mind by the Detaining Authority The court scrutinized whether the detention order was a mechanical reproduction of the statute without due application of mind. The court emphasized that the detaining authority must set out in clear terms both in the order and the grounds for detention upon which of the two apprehended results, or both, it was satisfied. Failure to do so would render the detention order vague and indefinite, indicating a lack of application of mind. 4. Definition and Interpretation of "Security of the State" and "Maintenance of Public Order" The court referred to judicial pronouncements to ascertain the connotation of "security of the State" and "maintenance of public order." It noted that these terms have well-understood meanings through a series of decisions. The court emphasized that the distinction between the two concepts lies in the degree and extent of the reach of the act in question upon society. Acts affecting "law and order" might not necessarily affect "public order," and acts affecting "public order" might not necessarily affect the "security of the State." Conclusion The court concluded that the use of the disjunctive 'or' in the detention order rendered it vague and indefinite, indicative of the detaining authority having merely reproduced mechanically the language of Section 3(1) of the Act. Consequently, the detention was held to be invalid, and the petitioner was entitled to his liberty forthwith. Separate Judgment In a separate judgment, another judge upheld the detention order, stating that the activities of the petitioner, as mentioned in the grounds of detention, fell within the expression "acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State or the maintenance of public order" as defined in Sub-section 2 of Section 3 of the Act. The judge found no cogent ground to take a different view and dismissed the petition. Final Order In view of the majority opinion, the writ petition was dismissed.
|
