1990 (3) TMI 382 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the detention order without specifying the period of detention.
2. Relevance of the grounds of detention to the maintenance of public order.
3. Alleged non-application of mind by the detaining authority.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Detention Order Without Specifying the Period of Detention:
The petitioner challenged the detention order on the ground that it did not specify the period of detention, rendering it illegal. Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act does not require the detaining authority to specify the period of detention. The Court noted that the Act provides a maximum period of detention of twelve months, and the State Government has the power to revoke or modify the detention order at any time. The Court referenced prior cases, including Ujagar Singh v. The State of Punjab, Suna Ullah Butt v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, and A.K. Roy v. Union of India, which consistently held that non-specification of the detention period does not invalidate the order. The Court concluded that the impugned order was not rendered illegal due to the absence of a specified detention period.

2. Relevance of the Grounds of Detention to the Maintenance of Public Order:
The sole ground for the detention was an incident on 29.7.1989, where the detenu allegedly attempted a murderous assault on a Minister during a Seminar, causing panic and obstruction to traffic. The Court examined whether this incident affected public order or merely law and order. The Court emphasized the distinction between 'law and order' and 'public order,' noting that the degree of disturbance and its impact on the community are crucial. The Court found that the incident, while serious, did not have the reach and potentiality to disturb the normal life of the community or public peace and tranquility. The Court cited Manu Bhusan Roy Prodhan v. State of West Bengal, where a solitary assault was deemed insufficient to disturb public order. Consequently, the Court held that the incident did not justify the detention for the maintenance of public order.

3. Alleged Non-Application of Mind by the Detaining Authority:
The detaining authority, the District Magistrate, was present at the Seminar but claimed he did not witness the incident as he was focused on the proceedings. The Court found it difficult to believe that the District Magistrate, seated on the dais with the Minister, did not observe the occurrence. The Court noted that the detaining authority should have formed the requisite opinion based on his own observations rather than solely relying on the police report. The Court concluded that there was non-application of mind by the detaining authority, rendering the detention order invalid.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court quashed the detention order, finding it invalid due to the failure to specify the period of detention, the irrelevance of the grounds to public order, and the non-application of mind by the detaining authority. The detenu was ordered to be released forthwith.