BINOD BIHARI MAHATO versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

Citation: [1975] 2 S.C.R. 215 · Decided: 01-10-1974 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.N. BHAGWATI · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
215 
BINOD BIHARI MAHATO 
v. 
STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. 
October 1, 1974 
(P. N. BHAGWATI AND R.. S. SARKARIA, JJ.] 
. Mai11tma11ce of I11ternal Security Act, 1971, Sectio11 3(1)(a)(ii)-Petitioner 
furni!!Jred with order of detention and the grounds of detention i11 Hindi as 
well as i11 English-English version of grounds containin11 the expression "or 
the securitv of the State in addition to "the maintenance of the public order" 
in the Hindi versio11-0rder of detention, if vitiated, 
The petitiorter was arrested at Dhanbad on 6!li March, 1974 and after 
l'eing produced before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, he was taken to Bhagal-
pur Central Jail from Dhanbad. On an application made by the petitioner, 
the Sessions Judge granted bail to the petitioner, and an order dated 18th 
March, 
1974, 
was passed for release of the petitioner. On the same day 
that is 18th March, 1974, the District Magistrate, Dhanbad passed an order 
detaining the petitioner under section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Secu-
rity Act, 1971, on the ground that it. was necessary to do so with a view to 
preventing the petitioner from acting in any manner prej\ldicial to the 
m~intenance of public order. 
Pursuant to the order of detention, the peti· 
tioner was arrested on 21st March, 1974 as soon as he was released on bail. 
At the time of his arrest the Hindi as well as English versions of the order of 
detention \Wre served on him together with the grounJs of detention which 
were also in Hindi and English versions. After enumerating the grounds, the 
Hindi version proceeded to recite the satisfaction of the District Magistrate 
that in the circumstances he was satisfied that if the petitioner "is allowed to 
remain at large he will indulge in activities prejudicial 
to 
the maintenance 
of public order" and for prevention of such activities he . considered the 
detention of the petitioner necessary. The words "or security of the State" 
were added in the recital of the satisfaction in the English version though 
ihey were absent in the Hindi version. The petitioner's· representation to 
the State Government was· rejected by the Govt. on 24th April, 1974. The 
Advisory Board before which the case of the petitioner had been placed by the 
State Govt. gave an opportunity to the petitioner to be personally heard and 
after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, it gave its opinion 
0'1, 2nd May, 
1974 that there was sufficient cause for the detention of .t:he 
petitioner. 
After the rejection of the petition 
under 
Art. 
226 
of the 
Constitution by the High Court. the petitioner filed the present petition under 
Art. 32 of the Constitution challenging the validity of his detention. 
It was contended that (i) the recital "or security of the Stale" 
in 
the 
English version of the grounds of detention showed that the District Magis· 
.trate did not apply his mind with any seriousness either to the acts alleged 
in the grounds of detention ag!linst the petitioner or to. the question whether 
they fell within the purview of the expression "the maintenance of public 
order" or "the security of the State" or both and that was sufficient to vitiate 
the order .if detention; '(ii) the first ground in so far as ·it aHeged that the 
petitioner was propagating communal hatred between Adivasis and 
others 
(Biharis) and also between Adivasis and non-Advasis was vague and unintelli-
gible and (iii) the District Magistrate had taken into account 
many 
more 
instances than those set out in grounds (2) and (6). 
Dismissing the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, 
HELD : If the order of detention purports to be based on the satisfaction 
of the detaining authority that it is necessary to detain the petitioner with 
a view to preventine him from acting in a manner pre.iudicial to the mainten· 
ance of public order or security of the State, ·it would clearly be an invalid 
order. [220 E-F] 
216 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1975] 2 s.p.!l. 
Kishor,i Mohan Bera v. Tlze State of We.111 Bengal, A.LR. 1972 ~.C. 1.749 
and Akshoy Konai v. State of West Bengal, A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 300, rehed on. 
If it appears in the present case that ~e or.der of de~ention made by the 
District Magistrate was based 011 the 
s~psfac!1on that 1t ~as necess~y .. to 
detain the petitioner with a view preventmg him from ca~rymg on activ1ues 
prejudicial to the maintenance of public order or the security of t~e St~te, .1t 
would have to be struck

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