DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, NOWGONG & ANR. versus SARAT MUDOI

Citation: [1983] 3 S.C.R. 957 · Decided: 14-09-1983 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AMARENDRA NATH SEN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

. ~-\ 
957 
DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, NOWGONG & ANR. 
v. 
SARATMUDOI 
September 14, 1983 . 
[RANGANATH MISRA AND AMARENDRA NATH SEN, JJ.] ' 
. 
National Security Act, 1980-Section 3(2) read with s. 3(3)-Detenlion 
'order not containing particulars of which of the specified supplies and services-
ajfected-Va/id. 
The respondent challenged the order of his detCntion under the National 
Security Act on the ground that since the detaining authority did not specify. 
in the order of detention as to which particular supplies and services he ha~ i.i:J. 
mind while making it, the order of detentioa was vitiated. The High Court 
set aside the order of detention. In appeal it wa·s submitted that it would. be 
impossible for the detaining autq.ority to specify any of the 16 items of services· 
and supplies included in the notification in re:Sard to the future conduct of 
the detenu. 
Allowing the appeal, 
' 
' 
HELD: Under the ~Act the detenu is entitled to make a representation 
against the order of detention. It is manifest from the statutory scheme that 
his right to represent is after the grounds are ~erved on the, detenu. The right 
of the detenu to make a representation should be without fetters and as wide 
as possible. Since the citizen is detained without trial and on the basis of 
satisfaction of a notified authority the right to represent ·assumes importance. 
· Th~ detenu would be in a position to effectively represt:nt only when specific 
particulars are provided to hi:n ~nd .the grounds are intentled to provide that 
material to him. A full disclosure made in t.he grounds .of detention in no way 
prejudices the right guaranteed to the detenu to make an effective represen-
tation challenging his detention. TherefOrc, non-specification of the required 
particulars in the Order of detention would not vhiate the order as long as the 
particulars are provided in t'1e grounds in support of the order of detention 
which in quick succession of.t.he detention order are served on the detenu. 
[960 B-E] 
It is open to the detaining authority to take note of the past conduct of 
a de~enu. 
I~ past conduct confined to any or all of the 16 'item~ in the 
notification could be satisfied, the detaining authority could also on the basis 
of reasonable apprehension of repetition of such conduct in future make an 
order of d~tention for hs p!evention. [960 H; 961 A] 
Dehu Maluo v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1974 SC 816, referred to. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
' ' H 
958 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1983] 3 S.C.R. 
CRIMINAL A PPELIATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 468 
of 1983: 
Appeal by Special leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 
2nd February, 1983 of the Gauhati High Court in Civil Rule (HC) 
No. 4/83. 
M.M. Abdul Kha<{er and S.K. Nandy for the Appellants. 
V.M. Tarkunde and Mrs. Manik Karanjawala with him, for the 
Respon,dent. 
, 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
' 
RANGANATH MISRA, J: 
The detaining authority under section 
3 (2) read withs. 3 (3) of the National Security Act, 1980 ('Al:(' fo'r 
short) being the .District Magistrate of Nowgong and the State of 
Assam assail the decision of the High Court at Gauhati quashing the 
order of detention. 
On October 20, 1982, the District Mag[strate made the 
following order : 
"Whereas I am satisfied from the dossier submi~ted 
by Superintendent of Police, Nowgong that it is necessary 
to prevent Sfiri Sarat Mudoi s/o Shri Renn Mudoi, village 
Senchows, P. S. Nowgong from acting in any manner 
prejudicial to maintenance of public order and main· 
tenance of supplies and services essential to the 
community, I. S. Kablian, IA.S., District Magistrate, 
Nowgong, hereby in exercise of powers conferred under 
section 3 (2) read 'with section 3 Ql of National Security 
Act, 1980, direct that Shri Sara! Mudoi be detained with 
immediate effect until further orders". 
In the grounds of detention which were supplied to the detenu 
within the time provided by law, six grounds'were specified. Before 
the High Court several contentions were raised including the one to 
the effect that if the detaining authority does not specify in the order 
of deiention as to which particular supply and/or service he had in 
mind while making it, the order of detention is vitiated. After 
hearing counsel for the parties, the High Court 
came to the 
conclusion : 
'_!., --
• I 
DISTRICT MAGISTRATE v. SARAT MUDOI (Ranganath Misra, J.) 959 
"We are of the view that as while passing.

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