1968 (11) TMI 109 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of detention orders under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950.
2. Relevance and vagueness of grounds for detention.
3. Distinction between "public order" and "law and order."
4. Validity of detention orders based on irrelevant or vague grounds.
5. Procedural compliance with constitutional safeguards under Article 22(5).

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of Detention Orders under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950:
The petitioners sought a writ of habeas corpus under Article 32 of the Constitution for their release from detention under Section 3(2) of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950. The Court examined the legality of the detention orders issued by the District Magistrates and confirmed by the Governor of West Bengal. The Court reiterated that the satisfaction of the detaining authority under Section 3(1)(a) is subjective and not justiciable. However, if any grounds for detention are irrelevant or vague, the detention order can be challenged.

2. Relevance and Vagueness of Grounds for Detention:
The Court scrutinized the grounds for detention provided to the detenu. For instance, in the case of petitioner no. 5, Subhas Chandra Bose alias Kanta Bose, the grounds included instances of assault and criminal intimidation. The Court found that grounds (a), (b), and (e) were not relevant to "the maintenance of public order" as they pertained to assaults on solitary individuals and did not affect the community or public at large. The Court emphasized that grounds must be specific and not vague to enable the detenu to make an adequate representation against the detention order.

3. Distinction between "Public Order" and "Law and Order":
The Court highlighted the distinction between "public order" and "law and order." It stated that not every infraction of order amounts to a disturbance of public order. Public order involves disorders of a grave nature affecting the community, whereas law and order pertain to relatively minor breaches of peace. The Court referred to the decision in Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar, which established that public order involves more serious disturbances than law and order.

4. Validity of Detention Orders Based on Irrelevant or Vague Grounds:
The Court held that if any of the grounds for detention are irrelevant or vague, the entire detention order becomes invalid. This is because it cannot be determined to what extent the irrelevant or vague grounds influenced the detaining authority's satisfaction. The Court cited previous decisions, including Shibban Lal Saksena v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar, to support this principle.

5. Procedural Compliance with Constitutional Safeguards under Article 22(5):
The Court examined whether the grounds for detention were communicated to the detenu in a manner that allowed them to make a representation, as required by Article 22(5) of the Constitution. In the case of petitioner no. 1, Pushkar Mukherjee, the Court found ground no. 2 to be extremely vague, thus violating the constitutional safeguard. The Court reiterated that each ground must be specific and not vague to comply with the constitutional requirement.

Conclusion:
The Court declared the detention orders against petitioners nos. 2, 4, 5, 6, 16, 17, 20, and 26, as well as petitioners nos. 1, 3, 7, 10, 12, 13, 19, and 22, to be illegal and ultra vires due to the presence of irrelevant or vague grounds. These petitioners were ordered to be released from custody forthwith. However, the Court found no illegality in the detention orders for petitioners nos. 8, 9, and 21, and their applications for a writ of habeas corpus were rejected. The petitions were dismissed accordingly.