ABDUL AZIZ versus THE DISTT. MAGISTRATE BURDWAN & ANR.

Citation: [1973] 2 S.C.R. 646 · Decided: 11-10-1972 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.M. SHELAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

646 
ABDUL AZIZ 
v. 
THE DISTI. MAGISTRATE BURDWAN & ORS. 
October 11, 1972 
IJ, M. SllEL!•r, Y. V. CHANDRACHUD AND I. D. DUA, JJ.] 
Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 26 of 1971-Murd,•r; alleged 
to he committed by petitioner whether have impact on 'public order' as 
such-Validity of order of detention passed during pendency of prosecu-
tion for sanie incidents in respect of which detention order passed-Effect 
of delay ln consideration of representation of detenu by Stale Government-
Par/i<:.ment whether competent to confer power ·an appropriate Governrnent 
to ;,ass ortier of 'd£'fention for maintenance of 'public order'. 
The petitioner was <letain.cd under the Maintcnano-.:! of Internal Secu-
rity Act, 1971 by an order of the District Magistrate Burdwan, West 
Bengal. 
He c.hallenged the order of detention 'in a writ pditio,n under Art. 
32 of the Constitution. The conrentions urged in support of the petition 
wero: (i) that the two incidents of murder mentioned in the grounds of 
.Ucte;ntion wcr··c germane to law and ordzr but could have no in1pact 
on 
'public order' as such; (ii) that the order of detention was passed <luting 
the pendcncy of a prosecution launched against the petitioner for the very 
same incidents tn regard to which the order of detention had been passed; 
(iii) that. there \Vas unreasonable delay in co.rrsider'ing the petitioner's J"e-
presentation hy the State Government; and (iv) that it was 110t open to 
the Parliament especially in view of the long title to the Act, to 
confer 
power on the appropriate Government to pass orders of detentio,n for the 
maintenance of p~1bliC: order, as "internal secur'ity" cannot 
CJmpreliend 
public order. 
HELD : ( i) The murders were stated to have been committod by the 
pctitiOncr and hh associates with the definite object of promoting the cause 
of the party to which they belonged. 
These, therefore, were :not stray 
or simple cases of murd1~r. Such incidents have serious rcpcrcu~.~ions ·not 
merely on lc..w and order bc1t on public order. [648A] 
(ii) It has .been held by this Court that the mere circumstance that· a 
detention order is passed d,uri:ig the pendency of a prosecution will not 
vitiate the order. 
In conccivahlc case:, it may become necessary to pass 
ar. order of d~tcntion in ttnticipation of nn order of discharge {l:' acquit-
tal. f648E] 
W.P. No. 112 of J 972, decided on 17th August 1972, refcrr-<d to. 
(iii) The petitioner's representation \.\'as l'~Ceived by the Government 
on 13th January 1972 a:n<l was rejected on 22nd February 1972. Appa-
renlly therefore there was delay in considering the representation. 
The 
affidavit on behalf of the State Government however showed that the repre-
sentation c:oul<l not he considered earlier because although the war with 
Pakistan had •onded, its after-effects were still looming large ~~ West 
Bengal and the officers of the State Government had to take appropriate 
steps for the return of the refuge.cs who had taken shelter 'in "·est Bengal .. 
The delay, thus, was satisfactorily explained. [648F] 
(iv) Under Entry 3 of List JIJ of the Seventh Schedule to the Consti-
tution, Parliament has t' !e power to legislate o.n "Preventive detention for 
reasons conn.cetcd with the security of a State, the maintenance of supplies 
and services essential to the community." Section 3(\)(a)(ii) of the Act 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
ABDUL A:zIZ V. DIST. MAGISTRATE BURDWAN 
647 
( Chandrachud, J,) 
confers pov•cr on the Central Government to ·.pass orders of det~ntion with 
a view to preventing any person from acting in any manner prejudicial to 
the security of the State or the maintena11Cc of public order. This power 
ca.nnot be controlled by anything stated in tht: long title of th.e 
~ct. 
Beside; the Jong title &'8eribes the Act as one for providing for detenuon 
for the purpose of maintenance of internal security and "matters connect-
ed therewith." 
"I:rrternal Security" is an expression of width sufficient to 
comprehend the concept of public order. Internal disturbances can threat-
en the security of the State and such disturbances ma~· assume grave pro· 
portion so "" to pave a direct impact on public vrder. [649B] 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 276 of 1972. 
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for hsuc of a 
writ in the nature of habeas corpus. 
R. P. Kathuria, for the petitioner. 
G. S. Cha::erjee, for the respondents. 
The Judgment o.f the Court 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.