DHANANJOY DAS versus DISTRICT MAGISTRATE & ANR.

Citation: [1983] 1 S.C.R. 122 · Decided: 16-08-1982 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.D. TULZAPURKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
' 0 
. 
D 
E 
G 
H 
122 
DHANANJOY DAS 
v. 
DISTRICT MAGISTRATE & ANR. 
August 16, 1982 
[V.D. TULZAPURKAR AND R.B. MISRA, JJ.) 
Constitution of India-Article 22(5)-Rights of detenu. 
National Security ACt~ 1980-section 3(3)-Grounds of detention-Inclu-
sion of paragraph in the nature of preamble or introduction-Validity • 
National Security Act, 1980-Section 3(3)-0rder of detention-Proof of 
satisfaction of detaining authority-Extraneous evidence not admissible. 
National Security Act, 1980-section 3(3)-Grounds of detention-Vague-
~1s-Determination of. 
The apPellant was detained by' an ofder made under section 3 (3) of ihe 
Act.t The grounds of detention served on him consisted of 4 paragraphs. The 
first part of paragraph 1 was admittedly introductory. The latter part of para.:· 
graph 1 was in the followillg terms: 
"Shri Das has been playing a leading part in -the current agitation on 
foreigners issue in collaboration with other active agitators who ~re 
leaders of AASU, Karmachari Parishad and Gana Sangrarn Parishad, 
,. by organising bundhs, 
non~cooperation ·programme, inciting people 
to violate law from time to time. Such activities have ~isturbed peace-
ful, tolerant and harmonious life: Or society". 
Paragraphs 2 and 3 gave details as to the part played by the appellant 
in a programme relating to obstruction of road and rail traffic and "violation of 
curfew by thousands of people. The first sentence of paragraph 4 stated: "Such 
activities of Shri Dhananjoy Oas are prejudicial t""the interest of maintenance of 
public order." 
The appellant challenged the order by a petition under Article 226 which 
was dismissed by the High Court. 
, 
In appeal, counsel for the appellant contended that paragraph 1 of the 
grounds was so vague that the order of detention must be quashed on that 
ground alone, that paragraphs 2 and 3 also sufferred from vag~eness for the 
ffi\!9~ th~! !h•y did not meQtigq certain necessary facts and that the facta 
.. 
,• , 
• 
DHANANJOY V, DISTT. MAGISTRATE . 
123 
alteged in the grounds of detention only made out a case for maintenance of IaW 
' and order and not of public order. 
Counsel for the respondent submitted that paragraph 1 was only a prelude 
or introductory and it did not deal with the grounds on which the District 
Magistrate bad biS subjective satisfaction in passing the order. 
Counsel for the app"ellant, on the other hand, relying on certain observa-
tions in Mohd. Yousuf Rather v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, conlended that 
Arti(:te 22(5) provided for supplying of grounds and there could be no preamble 
or introduction to the grounds of detention. It was submitted that the District 
_ Magistrate h.imself had in his counter-affidavit treated paragraph 1 as constituting 
one of the grounds of detention although ·be had subsequently changed his posi-
tion by filing a supplementary affidavit on the basiS of a note ma<le bf him 
earlier in his correspondence with the State Government. Counsel contended 
that the order of detention was conclusive as to the state of mind of the person 
who made it and no such extraneous evidence Was admissible. 
Dismissing the appeal, 
HELD : The law is by now well settled that a detenu has two ·rights 
under Article 22(5) of the Constitution: (1) to be informed, as soon 2s may be, 
of the grounds on which the order of detentioh 'is made, that is, the grounds 
which led to the subjective satisfactioh of the detaining authority;. and (2) to be 
afforded the earliest opportu~ity of making a representation against the order 
A 
B 
. -c 
D 
of detention, that is, to be furnished with sufficient particulars to enable him to 
E 
make a representation which on being considered may obtain relief to him. 
The inclusion of an irrelevant o.r non·existent ground, among other relevant 
grounds, is an infriDgement of the first of the fights and the inclusion of an 
obscure or vague ground a~ong other clear and definite gro.unds is an infrige· 
meat of the second of the rights. It is by yirtue 'of the second right that the 
detaining authority has to supply the. material facts on the basis of which sub· 
jectjve satisfaction was derived for passing th"e orde1 .of detention and this is 
F 
...,... 
how th~ facts from which the inference is drawn also become a part and parcel 
'i!i._,( 
of the grounds. (134 D-G] 
;..· 
(b) There is no bar, to have introductory paragraphs in the ground& of 
detention. 'he observations .in Mohd. Yousuf Rather's case do opt 

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