9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (8) TMI 220X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ame to the Government on 10th of January, 1982. The State Government received the same on 11th of January, 1982 and it was rejected on 13th of January, 1982. The order of detention was challenged by the appellant on two grounds : (1) that the grounds of detention were vague, and (2) that the facts narrated in the grounds related to law and order situation and not to public order. The High Court repelled both the grounds and dismissed the writ petition by its order dated 23rd of February, 1982. The High Court, however, granted a certificate for leave to appeal to this Court. Before dealing with the contentions in this case on behalf of the parties it will be appropriate at this stage to refer to the grounds of detention which were served on the appellant : 1. Sri Dhananjay Das,aged about 50 is the President of Purbanchalia Lok Parishad, Tezpur Unit. He is a contractor by profession. Sri Das has been playing a leading part in the current agitation on foreigners issue in collaboration with other active agitators who are leaders of AASU, Karmachari Parishad and Gana Sangram Parishad, by organising bundhs, non-cooperation programme, inciting people to violate law from time to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rovides for supplying the grounds of detention. In support of his contention he placed reliance on Mohd. Yousuf Rather v. State of Jammu Kashmir Ors.( ) [1979] 4 SCC 370. ) In that case Dr. Singhvi for the State strenuously submitted that the first paragraph of the grounds supplied to the petitioner was of an introductory nature, that paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 referred to the events which furnished the background and that the penultimate paragraph alone contained the grounds of detention as such. He submitted that it was permissible to separate the introduction and the recital of events constituting the background from the grounds of detention and if that was done it would be apparent that the order of detention suffered from no infirmity. He sought to draw support for his submission from the decision in Naresh Chandra Ganguli v. State of West Bengal.(1) In that case sections 3 and 7 of the Preventive Detention Act 1950 were the subject matter of consideration and this Court held that the two sections read together contemplate that the copy of the order passed by the detaining authority under s. 3 (2) of the Act to be served on the detenu should contain, (1) a preamble reciting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... grounds of detention. If such allegations are irrelevant or vague the detenu is entitled to be released. Shinghal J., with whom Sarkaria J. concurred, however, did not go to the extent of saying that there cannot be a preamble or introduction to the grounds. According to the counsel for the appellant the observations made by Chinnappa Reddy J. would be taken to be the observations made by the Full Court inasmuch as he agreed with the view expressed by Sarkaria and Shinghal JJ. Be that as it may, the observations referred to above do not indicate that there can be no preamble or introductory para in the grounds of detention. There is no bar to have introductory paragraphs in the grounds. The observations only mean all allegations of facts which have led to the passing of the order of detention will form part of the grounds of detention. It is, therefore, difficult to accept the contention that there could be no introductory para in the grounds. Whether a particular paragraph in the grounds amounts only to a preamble or introduction is to be determined on the facts and circumstances of each case and it is open to the Court to come to its own conclusion whether that paragra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been taking part in the current agitation on foreigners issue in the manner stipulated in the first paragraph, in which the appellant has also been playing a leading part. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the grounds deal with specific part attributed to the appellant on specific days and at specific places. That is why the first sentence of the last paragraph 4 stipulates such activities of Sri Dhananjoy Das are prejudicial to the interests of maintenance of public order and the appellant was called upon to make a representation against the allegations made against him in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the grounds. The first paragraph only contemplates that the various organisations have been taking part in the current agitation against the foreigners issue in the various modes enumerated therein. Shri Rangarajan sought to derive support for his contention from averments made in paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit filed by the District Magistrate on 24th of January, 1982 wherein it has been stated that ground No 1 is clear, specific and eloquent which provided all the opportunities to the detenu to submit his representation. This averment was in reply to the allegation made in the writ petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds of detention was vague and indefinite and in reply thereto the District Magistrate denied the vagueness of that ground. The District Magistrate, however, has clarified the position in his para-wise comments which he had sent to the Government by memo. No. DCM. 49/81/29 dated 15th of January, 1982. He clarified the position that paragraph 1 of the grounds of detention was only a preamble or introduction. This was done by him long before the filing of the writ petition itself and, therefore, the supplementary affidavit filed by him clarifying the position cannot be said to be an after thought and the High Court accepted the position that the District Magistrate did not take into consideration the statement of facts made in paragraph 1 of the grounds of detention. The grounds of detention read as a whole leave no room for doubt that paragraph 1 of the grounds of detention was only by way of introduction or as a preamble. In substance, it only indicates the modus operandi adopted by the various organisations to the current agitation on foreigners issue in Assam. The 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of the grounds of detention allege a specific part played by the appellant in that agitation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed that a detenu has two rights under Art. 22 (5) of the Constitution : (1) to be informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds on which the order of detention is made, that is, the grounds which led to the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority, and (2) to be afforded the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order of detention, that is, to be furnished with sufficient particulars to enable him to make a representation which on being considered may obtain relief to him. The inclusion of an irrelevant or non existent ground, among other relevant grounds is an infringement of the first of the rights and the inclusion of an obscure or vague ground among other clear and definite grounds is an infringement of the second of the rights. Therefore in this view of the legal position if the grounds are vague and indefinite that would amount to an infringement of the second right of the appellant. It is by virtue of the second right that the detaining authority has to supply the material facts on the basis of which subjective satisfaction was derived for passing the order of detention and this is how the facts from which the inference is drawn also become a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant to indicate what constitutes the grounds of detention. In the State of Bombay v. Atma Ram Sridhar Vaidya (1) this Court held : Clause (5) of Art. 22 confers two rights on the detenu, namely, first, a right to be informed of the grounds on which the order of detention has been made, and secondly, to be afforded the earliest opportunity to make a representation against the order; and though these rights are linked together they are two distinct rights. If grounds which have a rational connection with the objects mentioned in s. 3 are supplied, the first condition is complied with. But the right to make a representation implies that the detenu should have information so as to enable him to make a representation, and if the grounds supplied are not sufficient to enable the detenu to make a representation, he can rely on the second right. He may if he likes ask for further particulars which will enable him to make a representation. On an infringement of either of these two rights the detained person has a right to approach the court, and even if an infringement of the second right under Art. 22 (5) is alone established he is entitled to be released. As observed earlier i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... detention mentioned was that: You have been organising the movement (Praja Parishad Movement) by enrolling volunteers among the refugees in your capacity as President of the Refugee Association of Bara Hindu Rao. This ground was held to be vague and even though the other grounds were not vague, the detention was held to be not in accordance with the procedure established by law and was therefore illegal. In Bhupen Deka v. State of Assam((1981) Cri. L.J. 1743) only ground No. 1 was germane to the supplies and services essential to the community. The other grounds did not pertain to maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community. The Court on the facts held that : ...there is nothing in the ground to show disclosure of any material fact as to when, where, how and in what manner the bundhs, picketings, satyagraha had taken place and how and in what manner they affected the supplies and services essential to the community. There is not a single specific date or time of the bundhs, picketings, satyagraha nor is there any indication as to how the supplies and services essential to the community were affected. In the circumstances the order of detenti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be in the contemplation of the detenu and his associates, if any, no further details of the plan could possibly be disclosed. Reliance was placed in that case on the State of Bombay v. Atma Ram Sridhar Vaidya (supra) wherein it was held that vagueness is a relative term. It was observed further: Its meaning must vary with the facts and circumstances of each case. What may be said to be vague in one case may not be so in another, and it could not be asserted as a general rule that a ground is necessarily vague if the only answer of the detained person can be to deny it. If the statement of facts is capable of being clearly understood and is sufficiently definite to enable the detained person to make his representation, it cannot be said that it is vague. Further, it cannot be denied that particulars of what has taken place, can be more definitely stated than those of events which are yet in the offing. In the very nature of things, the main object of the Act is to prevent persons from doing something which comes within the purview of any one of the sub-clauses of cl. (a) of s. 3 (1) of the Act. Next reliance was placed on Masood Alam etc. v. Union of India Ors. ([1973] 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded it is obvious that no fresh ground for which the order of detention was made is being furnished to the detained person by the second communication which follows sometime after the first communication. Next reliance was placed on Bidya Deb Barma v. District Magistratc, Tripura, Agartala.( [1969] 1 S.C.R. 562) In that case also the impugned order was challenged on the ground of vagueness inasmuch as the ground did not give any details since no particulars of time, place and circumstances had been mentioned and relevant and irrelevant matters had also been included. In the circumstances of the case this Court negatived the contention and observed: The grounds begin by stating generally what the activities were. They consisted of instigation of tribal people to practise jhuming and preventing the authorities from delivering paddy to Government under the procurement schemes. This instigation it is said was through mass and secret meetings and resulted in violent resistance to Government. Having said this the grounds then specify the places where and the dates on which the meetings were held and the date on which and place at which the resistance took place. In our judgment m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order has been the subject matter of consideration by this Court on various occasions. In Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar (supra) this Court observed: What was meant by the maintenance of public order was the prevention of disorder of a grave nature, a disorder which the authority thought was necessary to prevent in view of the emergent situation created by external aggression; whereas the expression maintenance of law and order may mean prevention of disorder of comparatively lesser gravity and of local significance only. Again, the distinction was brought out in Ashok Kumar v. Delhi Administration Ors., (A.I.R. 1982 S.C. 1143) to which one of us was a party. This Court observed: The true distinction between the areas of public order and law and order lies not in the nature or quality of the act, but in the degree and extent of its reach upon society. The distinction between the two concepts of law and order and public order is a fine one but this does not mean that there can be no overlapping. Acts similar in nature but committed in different contexts and circumstances might cause different reactions. In one case it might affect specific indi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
