CHOTKA HEMBRAM versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.

Citation: [1974] 1 S.C.R. 563 · Decided: 29-08-1973 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HANS RAJ KHANNA · Disposal: Case Allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
CHOTKA HEMBRAM 
t. 
STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. 
August 29, 1973 
[H. R. KHANNA AND A. ALAGIRISWAMI, JJ.] 
563 
Mai11te1umcc of Internal Security Act, 1971 (Act 26 nf 1971) Sections 13 
and 14(2)-0rder of detention set aside b.v C~rt-Fresh order llf dl!lention on 
sarne facts is inval~d-Violates ss. 13 and 14(2). 
· 
An order for the detention of the petitioner was made under sub-section (2) 
of section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 by the District 
Magistrate, Burdwan on July 3, 1972. 
A writ petition against that order was 
allowed by this Court by judgment dated April 19, 1973. In pursuance of this 
judgment the petitioner was released on April 28, 1973. Two days before ihe 
release of the petitioner the District Magistrate of Burdwan made .a fresh deten-
tion order under s. 3 of the Act for the detention of the petitioner and based that 
order on the same grounds upon which the earlier order for the detention of th£> 
petitioner had been based. 
· 
.'\Uowing the petition under Art. 32 against the fresh order of detention, 
HELD : From the provisions of s. 14(2) of the Act it would follow that it 
an order for the detention of a person had been made under the Act and that 
order was either subsequently revoked or the period for which the detention order 
was made bas expired, tl)e said order would not stand in the way of the making 
of a fresh Order under ·section 3 of the -Act against the same person provided 
fresh facts arise after the date of the said revocation or expiry. If no· fresh factS 
come into being after the date of revocation or expiry as m3y :w.arrant the making 
of an order :>f detention. the requisite condition precedent to the making of the 
subsequent' order would be non--existent and it would not be permissible to make 
a subsequent on:ler of detention under sectjon 3 of the Act. 
In the present case, perusal of the grounds of 4etention made it manifest that 
they related .to incidents which took place at a -time prior l.J the revocation. of the 
earlier detention order dated July 3. 1972. 
In fact they related to Incidents 
which took place prior to the making of that order. 
As such those incidents 
could not provide valid grounds for the making of lhe subsequent detention .order 
dated April 26. 1973. [56SB-Fl 
. 
The impugned order was also violative of· s. 13 of the Act which provides 
1hat the maximum period for which any person may be retained in purn~n~ of 
any detention order. which bas been confirmed under s. 12, shall be 12 months 
from the date of detention. If· for the same acts repeated orders of detention 
can be m•de.. the effect would be that for the same acts a· dctenu would be liable 
to be detained for a periOO of more than 12 months. This would run ~µnter 
to the whole scheme of the Act. 
[566A] 
Masood Alam v. Union of India, A.l.R. 1973 S.C. 897, applied. 
ORIGINAL JUl\JSDICTION : Writ P~titiOll No. 841 of 1973. 
Under Article 32 ot the Constitution for a Writ in the nature of 
hahe1Ji corpus. 
8. JJatta, for the appellant. 
M. M. Kshatriya and G. s. Chatterjee, for the respondents. 
564 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1974 J 1 s .. c.R. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
KHANNA, J.-This is a petition under Article 32 of the Constitu· 
tion of India by Chotka Hembram for the issuance of a writ 
of 
habeas corpus. 
·, 
An order for the detention' of the petitioner was made under sub-
section 2 of section 3 of the Mainienance of Internal Security Act, 
1971 (Act 26 of 1971). (hereinafter referred to as the Act), by the 
District Magistrate of Burdwan on July J, 1972. The petitioner by 
means of· this petition challenged the validity of the aforesaid order 
for his detention. From the reply filed on behalf of the State of West 
Bengal it would appear that the petitioner was released on April 28, 
1.973 and a fresh order for the detention of the petitioner was made 
on April 26, 1973 by the District Magistrate of Burdwan during the 
pen_!lency of the present petition· 
The present petition, it may be mentioned, was sent from jail 
'by the petitioner on February 22, 1973. The petitioner is now being 
detained ill pursuance of the fresh order of detention dated April 26, 
1973. It is the validity of this later order of detention which is now 
being assailed before us on behalf of the petitioner. 
After hearing Mr. Datta, who has 
argued 
the 
case 
amicus 
curiae, and Mr. Kshtriya on behalf of the State of West Bengal, we 
ar
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.