1973 (1) TMI 99 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the first detention order of Masood Alam.
2. Validity of the second detention order of Masood Alam.
3. Validity of the detention order of Abdul Bari Kairanvi.
4. Relevance and specificity of the grounds for detention.
5. Allegations of mala fides in the detention orders.
6. Legal implications of serving detention orders while the detainee is already in custody.
7. The necessity of fresh facts for a new detention order after the expiry or revocation of a previous order.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the First Detention Order of Masood Alam:
The petitioner, Masood Alam, was detained under an order dated June 14, 1972, by the District Magistrate under Section 3(1)(a)(i) and (ii) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971. The grounds of detention, served on June 17, 1972, included allegations of exciting communal feelings and having extra-territorial loyalties. The Government did not approve the detention as required by Section 3(3) of the Act, leading to an order for his release on June 25, 1972. The Court found that the grounds for detention were relevant and germane to the Act, and the detention could not be considered mala fide merely because it also attracted provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code.

2. Validity of the Second Detention Order of Masood Alam:
A fresh detention order was passed on June 25, 1972, by the Governor of Uttar Pradesh under Section 3(1) of the Act. The petitioner argued that there was no imminent likelihood of acting prejudicially, making the detention an abuse of power. The Court held that the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction on relevant grounds was sufficient and not subject to objective scrutiny by the Court. The service of the detention order while the petitioner was in jail was also upheld as valid, provided the earlier custody was likely to cease soon.

3. Validity of the Detention Order of Abdul Bari Kairanvi:
Abdul Bari Kairanvi was detained under an order dated June 14, 1972, by the District Magistrate under Section 3(1)(a)-(i) and (ii) of the Act. The grounds included allegations of exciting communal feelings, having extra-territorial loyalties, and contributing to communal disturbances. The Court found the grounds to be relevant and germane, emphasizing that the facts stated in the grounds must be accepted as correct and not subject to review in writ proceedings. The Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the detention.

4. Relevance and Specificity of the Grounds for Detention:
The Court examined the grounds of detention for both petitioners and found them to be relevant and specific. The grounds related to past conduct, which is a legitimate basis for preventive detention. The Court emphasized that the grounds need not specify every minute detail but should provide sufficient information to enable the detainee to make a representation.

5. Allegations of Mala Fides in the Detention Orders:
The petitioners alleged that the detention orders were mala fide, intending to keep them in custody irrespective of valid grounds. The Court rejected these allegations, stating that the grounds for detention were relevant and germane to the Act. The Court found no evidence of mala fides in the detaining authority's actions.

6. Legal Implications of Serving Detention Orders While the Detainee is Already in Custody:
The Court addressed the issue of serving detention orders on individuals already in custody, stating that there is no legal bar to such service if the earlier custody is likely to cease soon. The Court cited previous judgments to support this view, emphasizing that the detention order must be based on relevant material and the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction.

7. Necessity of Fresh Facts for a New Detention Order After the Expiry or Revocation of a Previous Order:
Section 14 of the Act requires fresh facts for a new detention order after the expiry or revocation of a previous order. The Court held that in the absence of fresh facts, the new detention order would be invalid. In Masood Alam's case, the Court found no fresh facts after the expiry of the original order, leading to the quashing of the second detention order and the petitioner's release.

Conclusion:
The Court upheld the detention of Abdul Bari Kairanvi but quashed the second detention order of Masood Alam due to the absence of fresh facts. The judgments emphasize the importance of relevant and specific grounds for detention, the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority, and the necessity of fresh facts for new detention orders after the expiry or revocation of previous orders.