1968 (3) TMI 123 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the appellant's detention under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950.
2. Vagueness and relevance of the grounds for detention.
3. Non-existence of specific grounds for detention.
4. Impact of invalid grounds on the overall detention order.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Appellant's Detention:
The primary question for decision was whether the appellant's detention under sub-cl. (iii) of cl. (a) of sub-s. (1) of s. 3 and s. 4 of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, as per the order of the Governor of Bihar dated September 25, 1967, was unlawful. The appellant, a partner in a grocery shop, was detained on allegations of black-marketing essential commodities. The appellant challenged the detention, contending that the grounds provided were either vague or non-existent, thereby rendering the detention illegal.

2. Vagueness and Relevance of the Grounds for Detention:
The grounds for detention were scrutinized, particularly clauses (a) and (d) of the order dated September 27, 1967. Clause (a) alleged that the appellant sold matchboxes and soap at higher prices without specifying the buyer or the prices involved. The court found this ground vague and irrelevant, noting that the appellant had no opportunity to contest the allegations effectively. Moreover, the government had neither fixed the sale prices for matchboxes and soap nor had the power to do so, making this ground legally unsustainable.

3. Non-Existence of Specific Grounds for Detention:
Clause (d) alleged that the appellant sold kerosene oil to one Kishun Bhagat at a higher price. The appellant asserted that no such person existed in Gulab Bagh, which was confirmed by the respondents. The respondents then claimed a typographical error, stating the sale was to Kishun Bhagat of Village Kishanpur. The court found this explanation unsatisfactory and concluded that the appellant could not have made any representation against this new allegation, rendering the ground non-existent.

4. Impact of Invalid Grounds on the Overall Detention Order:
The respondents argued that the remaining grounds could justify the detention even if clauses (a) and (d) were ignored. The court rejected this contention, emphasizing that the detention of a citizen is a serious matter requiring strict adherence to legal safeguards. The court cited precedents establishing that if any ground for detention is vague, irrelevant, or non-existent, the entire detention order is vitiated. The subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority must be based on valid grounds, and the exclusion of any invalid ground could reasonably affect this satisfaction.

The court reiterated the importance of individual liberty, noting that preventive detention is a significant invasion of personal freedom. The Constitution provides safeguards against improper exercise of this power, and courts must enforce these safeguards diligently. The defects in clauses (a) and (d) were deemed sufficient to invalidate the detention order, as these grounds could have influenced the detaining authority's decision.

Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed, and the order of detention was set aside. The appellant was directed to be released immediately, emphasizing the importance of protecting individual liberty against unlawful detention. The court expressed regret that the High Court had not examined the appellant's complaint more closely.