1974 (2) TMI 96 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
- Petition for writ of habeas corpus under Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971
- Validity of detention order based on incidents from previous months

Analysis:
1. The petitioner filed a petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus to challenge his detention under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971. The District Magistrate had passed an order directing the petitioner's detention based on incidents involving theft of copper wire causing disruption to essential community services. The order was approved by the State Government and the petitioner was arrested, with the grounds of detention served upon him at the time of arrest.

2. The petitioner made a representation against the detention, which was considered by the Advisory Board. The Advisory Board, after a personal hearing with the petitioner, submitted a report stating there was sufficient cause for the detention. Subsequently, the State Government confirmed the detention order under the Act, leading to the petitioner challenging the order through the present petition.

3. The main contention raised by the petitioner's counsel was that the order of detention was based on incidents that occurred several months before the order was made, questioning the reasonableness of forming a satisfaction for detention at that point. The argument was that the time gap between the incidents and the detention order was too significant to support a valid satisfaction for detention. However, the District Magistrate, in his affidavit, affirmed being satisfied based on the incidents mentioned in the grounds of detention. The court emphasized that the satisfaction required for detention is based on anticipated future behavior derived from past incidents, and the time lapse between incidents and the detention order was not unreasonably long to invalidate the satisfaction.

4. The court rejected the petitioner's contention, stating that the time lapse between the incidents and the detention order was not substantial enough to render the satisfaction of the District Magistrate invalid. The court highlighted that the satisfaction required for detention is a reasonably anticipated prognosis of future behavior based on past incidents. Therefore, the court upheld the validity of the detention order, concluding that the petition failed, and the rule was discharged.