LexDEB SADHAN ROY versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G H DEB SADHAN ROY v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL December 7, 1971 (P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY AND D. G. PALEKAR, JJ.] 78·7 West Bengal (Prevention of Unlawful Activities) Act 1970-Confir· mation of Advisory Board's recommendation for detention beyond·.thr'1e months under s. 12 by Stale Government-Confirmation 'must· be wlthln three months of detention-Must he in writing-Must be communicated to detenu within reasonable time-Grounds of detention whether vagut because they did not mention names of associates of petitioner in the acts alleged against him-Disturbance of public order in s. 3(2)(er-ma1 amounts to. The petitioner was arrested on January 29, 1971 in pursuan;:e. of a detention order d_ated January 16, 1971 under the West Bonga! (Preven· tion of Violent Acitivities) Act 1970. The State Government's order under s .. 12 of the Act confirmin~ the report of the Advisory Board l'e· commending detention of the petitioner for more than three months wa.< passed on April 4, 1971. The order of conJll'mation was communicated to the petitioner on August 26, 1971. In his petition under Art. 32 Of the Constitution the petitioner urged; (i) that the order of confirmation under s.. 12 should not only have been passed within three months of the. det4on· lion but also communicated to the petitioner within that period; (ii) !hat lb8 grounds of detention were vague; (iii) that the facts alleaed dicl not amount to disturbance of public -Order. HELD : (i)(a) The confirmation of the opinion of the Advisorv Board to continue the detention beyond three months must be within three months from the date of detention in conformity with the mandate in cl. (4) of Art. 22 of the constitution (Reasons discus,,..,d. [794 DI Dattatraya Moreshwar Pangarkar v. The Stale of Bombay, &: Ors., U952J S.C.R. 612, distinguished. Kaur Singh V; Tht State, A.I.R. 1952·, Pepsu 134, Dhadhal 1'4MW Yaleg v. Saurashtra State A.LR. 1953 Sau. Umad Singh Naru,,,_ v; Siate, A.l.R. 1953, Sau. 51, San~apua Mal/appa Kadi cl Ors. v. The State o/ Mysore & Ors., A.LR. 1959, Mysore 7, .Aswini KumtJr Banni•• v. J'ht State cl Ors., 1970-71 (Col. LXXV) Calcutta Weekly Not-a66, approved and applied. (b) The confirmation cannot purely be a mental act. a subjective oae. but must result in an objective action, namely, that it should be recwd6d· in writing [795 C-D) ' Further, though there is no provision in the Act an order of confinna- tioo. which has the effect of extendin~ the period of detention beyond the mandatorv period of three months, must be made known to the detenu 'There is no warrant or justification for such an order remaining in th~ Illes of the e~utive without the same beina communicated to ihe person most concerned-the detenu-whose freedom has been objected to jeo. paTdy. He. is entitled to know tl¥.!t the Board hia considered his reime- sentation, as well a.s his personal submissions if he has cho~en to all!llar llefor~. and th.at 1t had ~ found that ttw:re. was sufficient cause for hiR detention and that the Slate Government had al!feed with it The .,_. munication need not within three months· of the date of detentiOll but 'Vis SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1972] 2 S.C.R. wilhin a reasonable time. The effect of non-communication, however, may be an ;rre2ularitv which does not make the detention otherwise le&al, illegal. [795 ]).. 79i CJ Mchammad Afzal Khan v. State of lammu & Kashmir, [1957] S.C.R. 63, Achhar Singh v. State of Punjab, Pein .. No. 359 of 1951-decided on 22-11-1951, Biren Dutta & Ors. v. Chief Commissioner of Tripura & Anotha, [1964] 8 S.C.R. 295, r~ferred to. ln ;he- present case the order of confirmation by the State Government was made within three months of the order of detention. Although the cOQ1111U11ication to the detenu was after three months he was not shown to have ~een pr~judiced by it. [796 DJ (ii) There was no validity in the petitioner's contention that the ·&fO~ds of detention were vague because the names of his asl!ociates were not mipplied. It was not necessary for the petitioner to make an effective representation to specify his associates because they may not have been Im~. [797 El liii) Jn this case what is said to have been defiled by the petition.;r and. tis associates is the statute of Rabindranath Tagore, a poet an~ sage v~ated by all in this country and affords suffidient ground for detenti9n. Tile other grounds also directly connected the a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.