BIREN DUITA AND OTHERS versus CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF TRIPURA AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1964] 8 S.C.R. 295 · Decided: 23-07-1964 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

8 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
295 
BIREN DUITA AND OTHERS 
v. 
CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF TR.IPURA AND ANOTHER 
(P. B. 
GAJENDRAGADKAR, 
C.J., K. N. 
WANCHOO, M. 
HIDAYATULLAH, J. <;:. SHAH AND N. RAJAGOPALA 
AYYANGAR; JJ.) 
Detention 
Order-Review-Continuation 
of 
dettntfon 
beyond 
1iz 
months-Order, if must be recorded in writing and communicated 
to the deten,,-Defence of India Rules, 1962, RR. 30 (l)(b), 
30A(8). 
The Administrator of the Union Territory of Tripura passed orders 
detaining 68 persons, including the appellants and the petitioners, under 
R. 30(I)(b) of the Defence of India Rules, 1962. While gradually 
releasing 45 of them be purported to detain the appellants and tho 
petitioners under R. 30A(8) of the said Rules, The appellants moved 
the Judicial Commissioner under Art. 226 of the Constitution and their 
case was that the decision to continue them in detention was J?Ot recorded 
in writing nor was it communicated to them and was, therefore, invalid 
in law. The Judicial Commissioner dismissed the said application!. The 
petitioners moved this Court under Att. 32 of the Constitution and 
their case was also the same. The first review held on February 1 S, 
1963, in respect of all the 68 detenus was reoorded as follows.-
"On review of the detention order in respect of all the detenus 
CC. decided to cailcel orders in respect of detent11 at 
S. Nos. l, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12 and 13." 
It was urged on behalf of the respondent that the order by implication 
continued the detention of the appellants and the petitioners and. such 
detention was confirmed by subsequent orders. 
Held: (i) The order did not comply with the provisiot11 of R. 30A(8) 
of the Defence of India Rules and the detenus before this Court mmt 
be set at liberty. 
Decision to continue a detenu in detention must not only be recorded 
in wNting but such writing must clearly and unambiguously indicate 
that decision. 
Subsequent reviews under the Rule could not validate the illegal 
continuance of the detention after the expiry of six months from the 
date of the original order of delenlion. 
Decision recorded under R. 30A(8) is in tho nature of an independent 
decision and further detention can be justified only if the doci1ion Is 
recorded u required by it 
1964 
July, 23 
1964 
Biren Dutta 
v. 
296 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
Even assuming that an order passed under R. 30A(8) could in a 
proper case imply the decision to• continue the detention of some of 
the detenus, the present case could not be said to be one 1uch. 
C.C. of Tripura 
(ii) Assuming, though not deciding, that a decision recorded under 
R. 30A(8) of the Rules was not in law required to be communicated 
to the detenue, it was just and proper that the decision should in every 
case be communicated to the detenu. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
Nos. 87-91 of 1964. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order 
dated January 18, 1964, of the Judicial Commissioner's 
Court for Tripura in Criminal Misc. (Habeas Corpus) 
Petitions Nos. )5, 20, 25, 26 and 28 of 1963, and Habeas 
Corpus Petitions Nos. 24 and 27 of 1963. 
AND 
Writ Petitions Nos. 43, 42, 40, 41, 65 and 80 of 1964. 
Petition Under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India for 
the enforcement of the fundamental rights. 
R. K. Garg, S. C. 
Agarwala, D. P. Singh and M. K. 
Ramamurthi, for the appellants and petitioners in all. 
H. N. Sanyal, Solicitor-General, D. R. Prem and R. H. 
Dhebar, for the respondents (Except Respondent No. 2 in 
W.P. 43 of 1964). 
D. Goburdhun, for respondent No. 2 (in W.P. 43 of 
1964). 
July 23, 1964, The 
Judgment of the 
Court 
was 
delivered by 
Gajendragadkar 
'GAJENDRAGADKAR, C. J.-These Criminal Appeals and 
c. I. 
Writ Petitions have been placed for hearing together in a 
group because they raise common questions of law. 
As is well-known, after 
the Chinese 
attacked 
the 
northern border of India on the 8th September, 1962, the 
President issued a Proclamation under 
Art. 3 5 2 of the 
Constitution on the 26th October, 1962. 
This proclama-
tion declared that a grave emergency existed which posed a 
threat to the security of India. 
On the same day, an Ordi-
8 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
297 
nance was promulgated by the President. This Ordinance 
was subsequently modified by Ordinance No. 6 of 1962 on 
the 3rd of November, 1962. The President also issued an 
Order under Art. 359 ( 1) suspending the rights of citizens 
to mow any court for the enforcemen
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.