AJAY DIXIT, N.S.A. DETENU, THROUGH HIS NEXT FRIEND AND FATHER SHRI RAM NARAIN DIXIT (LODGED IN DISTRICT JAIL AGRA) versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

Citation: [1985] 1 S.C.R. 843 · Decided: 26-09-1984 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: E.S. VENKATARAMIAH · Disposal: Case Allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
AJAY DIXIT, N.S.A. DETENU, 
THROUGH HIS NEXT FRIEND 
AND FATHER SHRI RAM NARAIN DIXIT 
(LODGED IN DISTRICT JAIL AGRA) 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS 
September 26, 1984 
(E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND SABYASACHi MUKHARSJ, JJ.] 
843 
National Security Act, 1980, sec. 3 (2) and SA-" Law and Order situation" 
and 0 Malntenance of Public Order" distingut;shed. 
Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act 1980 (for short, the Act) empo· 
wers the Central Government and the State Governments, ir satisfied with res-
pect to any person, with a view to preventing him, "inter a/la from acting in any 
manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order .. , it is necessary to do so 
to make an order directing such person to be detained. Section 5-A of the Act 
by virtue of section 2 of the National Secourity (Second Amendment) Act provi-
des. (i) that where a person has been detain~d under section 3 of the Act on two 
or more grounds, such order of detention shall be deemed to have been made 
separately on each of such grounds and that such an order shall not be deemed 
to be invalid or inoperative mere1y because one or some of the grounds are 
vague, non.existent, non.relevant, not connected or invalid for any reasons 
whatsoever and the Government or officer making the order of detention shall 
be deenled to have made the order of detention under the said section after being 
satisfied as provided in that section with reference to the remaining ground or 
grounds. 
Tho District Magistrate, Agra passed an order of detention of Ajay 
Dixit, the detenu, under s. 3 (2) of the Act on 29th February 1984 stating that 
he was satisfied that the detenu was likely to act in a manner prejudicial to 
maintenance of pubilc order and that it was necessary to detain him with the 
object of preventing him from acting prejudicially to the maintenance of public 
order. The grounds of detention were (i) that on 10.4.81 the detenu alongwith 
his companions surrounded Shri Kanbaiya Lal Sharma with the intention of 
killing him but the latter escaped slightly ; (ii) that on 27.9.82 he fired at 
the police party from his house where the policy had gone to arrest goondas 
collected by him ; (iil) That on bis arrest on 27.9.1982 a country made 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
ff 
A 
B 
c 
D 
F 
E 
G 
H 
844 
SUPREME COUllT REPORTS 
[1985) 1 S.C.R. 
Tamancha and two live cartridges without licence were recovered from him ; 
(iv) That on 15.1.83 he shot dead Shri Naresh Pnliwal; (v) That on 31.10.1983, 
he forcibly compelled Mrs. Sanjcev Kumar Paliwal at the point of a revolver to 
take a nude snap of immoral act being committed by Umesh with Sanjeev 
Kumar Gupta; and (vi) That on 26.2.1984, he attempted to murder Shri Jai 
Kumar Jain. The grounds of detention also Stated the fact that criminal cases 
were pending trial in the court in respect of the above c:riminal acts committed 
by the detcnu. 
' 
The petitioner-father of the dctenu, n1ovcd this a,urt under Article 32 of 
the Constitution for a writ of habeas corpus directing the release of the detenu 
from detention. He contended, 
inter~alia, that the grounds mentioned in the 
order were illusory, insufficient and not bona fide and in any case irreJevant for 
the detention of the detenu for the maintenance of public order. 
Allowing the writ petition, 
HELD : (1) The satisfaction of the detaining autboriity cannot be subjected 
to objective tests and courts are not to exercise appellate p1:>wers over such autho· 
rities and an order proper on its face, passed by a comp1~tent authority in good 
faith, would be a complete answer to a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. But 
when a challenge is made to a .detention on the grouods that the stale and 
irrelevant grounds were the basis for detention, then the detenu is entitled to be 
released and to that extent the order is subject to judicial review not on the 
ground of sufficiency of the grounds nor the truth of the grounds but ooJy about 
the relevancy of the grounds which would come under judicial scrutiny. It is, 
therefore, necessary in each case to examine the facts to determine not the 
sufficiency of the grounds nor the truth of the grounds, but nature of the 
grounds alleged and see whether these are relevant or not for considering whe· 
ther the detention of the detenu is necessary for maintenance of public order. 
[850F ; 853A-B : 854G-HJ 
(2) It is important to bear in mind the differenci: between the law and 
order situation & maintenance of public o

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