1981 (12) TMI 183 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of detention under the National Security Act, 1980.
2. Grounds of detention being vague and lacking in particulars.
3. Delay in considering the representation made by the petitioner.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged the validity of his detention under the National Security Act, 1980, by the District Magistrate, Moradabad, citing the necessity to prevent him from acting prejudicial to public order. The detention was based on two incidents - communal riots in August 1980 and incitement to violence in July 1981. The grounds of detention detailed the petitioner's involvement in these incidents, aiming to prevent communal violence in Moradabad City.

2. The petitioner's counsel contended that the grounds of detention were vague and lacked specifics, challenging the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. However, the Supreme Court held that the grounds provided adequate particulars to form the basis of detention. The incidents, though a year apart, demonstrated the petitioner's propensity for inciting communal violence, justifying the detention to maintain public order. The Court emphasized that prior conduct is relevant in assessing future behavior, and the incidents were proximate in time, directly linked to public order concerns.

3. The second contention raised was the undue delay in the State Government's consideration of the petitioner's representation. The timeline of events showed that the representation was promptly forwarded and diligently processed at various levels, culminating in the Chief Minister's rejection on the 24th day. The Court found no unexplained delay in the State Government's review of the representation, thereby dismissing the petitioner's claim of prolonged detention without due consideration.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the validity of the detention under the National Security Act, 1980, based on specific grounds related to the petitioner's involvement in inciting communal violence. The Court also ruled out any undue delay in the State Government's assessment of the petitioner's representation, affirming the lawfulness of the detention.