ADHIR NAIA versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Citation: [1975] 2 S.C.R. 449 · Decided: 16-10-1974 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Case Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
n: 
G 
ADHIR NATA 
v. 
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL 
October 16, 1974 
[Y.V. CHANDRACHUD AND R.S. SARK:AR!A, JJ.] 
449 
Conat/tution of India, Art. 32-Habeas Corpus-Detention based on 1ingl1 
isolated incident-Sufficiency of grounds whether justiciable-Whether a court of 
appeal (f no r~asonable person can arrive at conclusion-Apprehension regarding 
f11/11Te arising but of past conduct. 
The petitioner was detained under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act 
on the ground that on a particular day he along with his associates broke open a 
railway wagon loailed with foodgrains. 
Th~ petitioner in Writ Petition filed in 
this Court under Art. 32 contended that he was detained on the basis of a single 
isolated incident and that ho reasonable person could possibly come to the con-
clusion that it is necessary to detain the petitioner in order to prevent him from 
acting prejudicially to the Maintenance of Supplies and Services essential to the 
community. 
It was contended by the respondent that the sufficiency or grounds of deten-
tion is not a justiciable issue and all that the courts can consider is whether tho 
JllOUnds of detention are germane to the grounds on which the detention .has been 
ordered. If wagon breaking for the purpose of committing theft of foodstuffs 
bears nexus with the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the commu-
nity. the detention must be upheld at all events and the courts have no jurisdiction 
to enter into the question whether any other conclusion was possible on the basiS 
of facts placed before the detaini~g authority. 
Setti!lg 11Side the detention, 
HELD : Following the decision of this Court in Debu Maliato v. State of West 
&ngal, (1974) 4 S.C.C. 135, it is true that the courts cannot sit in appeal over tho 
propriety of a detention order. But there is a distinction between the Court's 
jurisdiction in regard to the sufficiency of grounds necessitating the detention and 
its jurisdiction to examine whether a reasonable person could at all reach the con-
clusion that unless a person was detained he would in all probability Indulge in a 
similar course of conduct. So long as the grounds of detention are germane to tho 
purpose of detention courts do not weigh the evidentiarY value of the data placed 
before the detaining authority. In the present case, no reasonable person can 
come to the conclusion on the basis of a solitary act of wagon breaking that it is 
necessary to detain the petitioner. Considering the nature of the act attributed tn 
the petitioner and its context and not merely the fact that the ground of detention 
refers to a single incident the satisfaction reached by the District Magistrate that tho 
petitioner, unless detained, was likely to commit similar acts in the future, is such 
as no reasonable person could possibly reach. The conclu,lon that the past conduct 
of the dctcnu raises apprehension regardina his future behaviour must at least bt 
rational. [452A-BDJ 
C:v1L APPELLATE JU1Uso1cnoN: Writ Petition No. 254 of 1974. 
Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. 
S. K. Gambh{r, for the petitioner. 
P. K. Cltatterjee and G. S. Chatterjee, for the respondent. 
H 
The Judgment of the Court was deli~ed by 
CJIANDJlA()}IUI), J.-Byanotder dated May 29, 1972, the District 
Magistrate, 24 Parganas directed that the petitioner be detained under 
450 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1975] 2 s.C.R. 
tho Maintenance oflnternal Security Act, 1971 as he wa~ acting in ll 
manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essen-
tial to the community. The particulars of the ground of detention 
refer to a sin.gle incident described thus: 
0 That on 24-5·72 at about 10 ·35 hrs. you along with 
your associates broke BEX Wagon No. WR 75961 loaded 
with foodgrains at Mathurapur Goods sidings and decamped 
with 10/12 bags of wheat and rice. Your action caused disrup· 
tion of supply and services". 
Mter the rule issued in this habeas coprus petition was served on the 
respondent, the State of West Bengal, the District Magistrate filed a 
counter-affidavit in answer to the petition. Paragraph 5 of the aforesaid 
affidavit says that the order of detention was passed after the District 
Magistrate was satisfied that it was necessary to detain the petitioner 
with a view to preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial 
to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community; 
that the Distri,ct Magistrate was satisfied 

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