AYYA ALIAS AYUB versus STATE OF U.P. & ANR.

Citation: [1988] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 967 · Decided: 25-11-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANGANATH MISRA · Disposal: Case Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A YYA ALIAS A YUB 
A 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. & ANR. 
NOVEMBER 25, 1988 
[RANGANATH MISRA AND M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, JJ.] 
B 
Constitution of India, 
1950: Article 21-Personal liberty-
Greatest of human freedoms-Preventive detention laws-To be strictly 
construed-Procedural safeguards-Meticulous compliance to be 
insisted upon. 
National Security Act, 1980: Sections 3 and 5-detention order-
Subjective satisfaction of detaining authority-Necessity for-What 
would be a simple 'law and order' situation may assume gravity and 
mischief of 'public order' problem. 
c 
Statutory Interpretation: Preventive Detention laws to be strictly D 
construed-meticulous compliance with procedural safeguards to be 
insisted upon. 
The petitioner-detenu was involved in three incidents of offensive 
activity. In the first two incidents he is alleged to have damaged the 
buses of one Anil Gautam whereupon non-cognizable offences under E 
section 504, 427 I.P.C. were registered against him. In the third inci-
dent he is alleged to have caused the death ofAn;J Gautam by giving him 
knife blows and a case under s. 3021.P.C. was registered against him. 
While the detenu was in judicial custody, the detaining authority, 
apprehending his release on bail, passed the order of detention against 
F 
him under s. 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980. The three grounds 
of detention related to the three incidents stated above. 
On behalf of the petitioner in the writ petition, it was contended 
that the order of detention was vitiated because (i) the grounds, even 
assuming to be true, were focapable in law of producing the satisfaction G 
of any apprehension in regard to the maintenance of the public-order, 
and, at the worst, did no more than to suggest a possible 'law and order' 
situation; (ii) the object of the present detention w .. s avowedly _to 
render nugatory the benefit of the bail since granted to the detenu; and 
(iii) the detaining authority failed to consider the telegram sent on 
behalf of the petitioner complaining that the petitioner had been taken H 
967 
968 
SUPREME COURT ·REPORTS 
[1988] Supp. 3 S.C.R. 
A away by the police at 8.00 p.m. earlier that night while the incident of 
assault on Anil Gautam, as stated in the third ground, occurred at 
about 9.10 p.m. that night. 
B 
c 
Ramesh Yadav v. Distt. fr!agistrate Etah, AIR 1986 SC 315, relied 
upon. 
On behalf of the State, it was contended that the three acts 
attributed to the detenu had serious adverse effect on the even tempo of 
life in the locality and produced a "public-order" problem and that the 
detention fully satisfied all the procedural-safeguards. 
Allowing the writ petition and quashing the order of detention it 
was, 
HELD: (1) Section SA of the Act provides that where a person has 
been detained on two or more grounds, such order shall be deemed to 
have been made separately on each of such grounds. The object of sec. 
D 
SA is that if any of the grounds is found to be vague, non-existent, not 
relevant, not connected with the detenu or is invalid for any other 
reason whatsoever, it should be open to the detaining-authority to sup-
port the detention order on such ground or grounds as may not be so 
vitiated. (971B-C] 
. 
E 
(2) Personal liberty protected under Article 21 of the Constitution 
is held so sacrosant and so high in the scale of constitutional values that 
in a habeas corpus petition the obligation of the detaining-authority is 
not confined just t.o meet the specific-grounds of challenge but is one of 
showing that the impugned detention meticulously accords with the 
procedure .established by Jaw. The law of preventive-detention are 
F 
strictly construed an.d compliance with the procedur~I safeguards, how-
ever technical, is strictly insisted upon by the courts. [974F-H] 
Thomas Pelham Dales's, case (1881] 6 QBD 376, referred to. 
(3) The compulsions of the primordial need to maintain order in 
G 
society, without which the enjoyment of all rights, including the right to 
personal liberty, would lose all its meaniiig is the true justification 
for the laws of preventive detention. The pressures of the day in 
regard to the imperatives of the security of the State and of public-
order might it is true require the sacrifice of the personal liberty of 
individuals. [975G-H] 
H 
AYYA v. STATE OF U.P. 
969 
(4) The actual manner of administration of preventive detention 
is of utmost importance. The law has to be justified by the genius of its 
administr

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