1994 (2) TMI 322 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of Detention Order under the Tamil Nadu Act.
2. Detention of a person already in custody.
3. Non-supply of relied documents to the detenu.
4. Delay in serving the grounds of detention.
5. Right to make representation to the detaining authority.

Summary:

1. Validity of Detention Order under the Tamil Nadu Act:
The petitioner was detained u/s 3 of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1982, to prevent him from acting prejudicially to public order. The grounds of detention included multiple criminal cases against the petitioner. The Court emphasized that the authority must be satisfied that the individual falls under the category of 'goonda' as defined u/s 2(f) of the Act. The detaining authority was satisfied that the petitioner's activities were prejudicial to public order.

2. Detention of a person already in custody:
The petitioner argued that he was already in custody and had not applied for bail, making the detention unwarranted. The Court noted that the detaining authority was aware of the petitioner's custody and had reason to believe he might be released on bail. The Court cited previous judgments, stating that a detention order can be validly passed against a person in custody if there is a possibility of their release and potential for future prejudicial activities.

3. Non-supply of relied documents to the detenu:
The petitioner contended that the detaining authority relied on documents not supplied to him, preventing effective representation. The Court found that the FIRs were sufficient to classify the petitioner as a 'goonda' and that the non-supplied documents did not form the basis of the detention grounds. The Court held that the non-supply did not cause prejudice to the petitioner.

4. Delay in serving the grounds of detention:
The petitioner argued that the grounds of detention, prepared on February 15, 1993, and signed on February 16, 1993, were served only on February 20, 1993, violating the requirement to serve "as soon as may be." The Court noted that the grounds were served within the statutory period of five days, as provided under the Act, and thus complied with legal requirements.

5. Right to make representation to the detaining authority:
The petitioner claimed that the grounds did not inform him of his right to make a representation to the detaining authority for revocation. The Court held that under the Tamil Nadu Act, the detaining authority's power to revoke ceases after the State Government's approval. The Court referred to similar provisions in other preventive detention laws and concluded that the detaining authority does not have independent revocation power post-approval.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed both the writ petition and the special leave petition, upholding the detention order. The Court found that the detaining authority had properly applied its mind, followed statutory requirements, and that the petitioner's rights were not violated.