DAVID PATRICK WARD AND ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1992] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 26 · Decided: 26-08-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L.M. SHARMA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
DAVID PATRICK WARD AND ANR. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
AUGUST 26, 1992 
[L.M. SHARMA, S. MOHAN AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.] 
National Security Act, 1980: Sections 3( I), 3(2): British nation-
als-Detention orde1'-l'etition challenging detention on the plea of" vagueness 
and non-service of grounds, detention based on solitary Act, non-considera-
C lion of representalion, refusal to deport-Held grounds served were neither 
vague nor ambiguous-Solitary Act can form the basis of detention order-
When writ challenging deteniion is filed immediately after making repre-
sentation matter becomes sub-judice and the question of considering repre-
sentatio11 does not arise-:-Detenlion order held valid. 
D 
SectiOll 5-cf'ower of clJult to regulate place and wnditions of detention: 
E 
F 
Foreign nationaf--Detentzon. order-Criteria for fixing place of deten-
tion-Factors to be taken inro account-Convenience of Consular officers is 
not the lone criteria-Consideralion of security is impoltant-Vienna Conven-
tion on Consular Relations-Altic le 36( 1 ). 
The Nagaland State Government passed Detention Orders dated 
31.1.1992 against the petitioners, both British Nationals, under sub-section 
(1) and (2) of section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980. The grounds of 
detention comprised of that (I) a convoy of four fast moving motor vehicles 
under the complete control of Naga Insurgents and their associates was 
moving during night in the disturbed area where Naga Insurgency was on 
the rise; (II) the Insurgents and their associates were carrying modern and 
sophisticated weapons, necessary equipments for preparing documentary 
of the struggle of Insurgents and their associates for establishment of 
Independent Nagaland State and large amount of Indian and foreign 
G currency to fund insurgent activity; (Iii) while bait signal was given to the 
convoy, the occupants opened fire and caused injury to one of the members 
of the patrol party; (Iv) while one of the petitioners surrendered, the other 
was arrested only after a chase. 
Each petitioner being served with the detention order made against 
H 
him along with the ground of detention on 4.2.1992, is detained in pur-
26 
DAVIDPATRICKv. U.0.1. 
27 
suance thereof. Both the petitioners being lodged at Jessami Jail, to begin A 
with, are shirted to Imphal Central Jail and thereafter to Naini Jail, 
Allahabad where they are said to have been lodged finally for security 
reasons. A report on the said detentions is said to have been made on 
18.2.1992, by the Nagaland State Government to the Central Government 
as required by sub-section (5) or section 3 or the Act. Nagaland State B 
Government is said to have also made reference to.Advisory Board respect-
ing the detentions or the petitioners as required by section 10 or the Act. 
Pursuant thereto; the Advisory Board heard the petitioners in person on 
their detentions. After such hearing, the Advisory Board being of the 
opinion that there was sufficient cause for detention or the petitioners, a 
report was sent to Nagaland State Government which on consideration of C 
that report has confirmed the detention orders on 2.4.1992. 
Petitioners have filed the present Writ Petition challenging the 
legality of the detention orders made against them and their continued 
detention on the grounds that; (1) a solitary Act cannot form the basis of D 
a detention order; (2) the grounds or detention are vague; (3) neither of 
the petitioners was served with the detention order and grounds of deten-
tion made against him. Therefore, no effective representation could be 
made; (4) the representation made to the State Government bas not been 
considered; (5) one of the petitioners bad expressed the desire to return 
to bis country, he must have been deported; and (6) the prayer of the E 
petitioner for transfer to Central Jail, Tibar, Delhi could be ordered to 
enable the petitioners to contact the British High Commission and get 
their grievances redressed effectively. 
Dismissing the petitions, this Court, 
F 
HELD: 1. _The detaining authority can base Its order or detention 
even on a solitary act provided that the conduct or the person concerned 
with the act In the circumstances In which It was committed, is or such a 
nature as would enable the formation of requisite satisfaction that the G 
person, Ir not prevented by an order or detention, is likely to Indulge in 
repetition of similar acts in future. That Is certainly so In the prese

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