1983 (12) TMI 332 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Validity of the detention order u/s 3(3) read with u/s 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980.
2. Compliance with Article 22(5) of the Constitution regarding the right to make a representation.
3. Adequacy of particulars furnished to the detenu.
4. Non-application of mind by the detaining authority.
5. Requirement of evidence disclosure to the detenu.
6. Filing of counter-affidavit by the detaining authority.
7. Adequacy of time for the detenu to instruct counsel before the Advisory Board.

Summary:

1. Validity of the Detention Order:
The respondent challenged the detention order dated October 3, 1983, passed by the District Magistrate, Ludhiana, under the National Security Act, 1980. The grounds of detention were based on two speeches made by the respondent, which were considered provocative and prejudicial to public order.

2. Compliance with Article 22(5) of the Constitution:
The High Court held that the State Government failed to provide an effective opportunity for the respondent to make a representation to the Advisory Board, as required by Article 22(5) of the Constitution. The Supreme Court examined whether the particulars furnished were sufficient for the respondent to make an effective representation.

3. Adequacy of Particulars Furnished:
The Supreme Court found that the grounds of detention mentioned all necessary details such as the place, date, time, and content of the speeches. Although the C.I.D. report did not contain all these particulars, the grounds of detention did. The Court concluded that the respondent was provided with sufficient particulars to make an effective representation.

4. Non-application of Mind by the Detaining Authority:
The respondent argued that the detention order showed non-application of mind as it could not have been based on the incomplete C.I.D. report. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, noting that the detaining authority had the complete C.I.D. report and the grounds of detention contained all necessary details.

5. Requirement of Evidence Disclosure:
The respondent contended that the evidence on which the detention order was based should have been disclosed to him. The Supreme Court held that it is not required to disclose the evidence or sources of information, as long as the grounds of detention and material particulars are provided.

6. Filing of Counter-affidavit:
The respondent criticized the counter-affidavit filed by the Deputy Secretary in the Home Department instead of the District Magistrate. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of the detaining authority filing their own affidavit but found no mala fides in this case, thus not vitiating the detention order.

7. Adequacy of Time for Counsel Instructions:
The respondent claimed inadequate time to instruct his counsel before the Advisory Board. The Supreme Court found no substance in this grievance, noting that the respondent was represented by an advocate and no such complaint was made during the proceedings.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and remanded the matter to the High Court for consideration of the remaining contentions raised by the respondent. The Court also advised against the practice of pronouncing final orders without reasoned judgments.