LexFAZAL GHOSI, WAHID, AYAZ AHMAD AND RIAZ AHMAD versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
-
FAZAL GHOSI, WAHID, AYAZ AHMAD
AND RIAZ AHMAD
v.
STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
JUNE 29, 1987
'
[R.S. PATHAK C.J. AND V. KHALID, J.J
National Security Act, 1980-Sub-s. (3) of s. 3-Detention
'°'"" Order-Subjective satisfaction of District Magistrate must be based
upon some pertinent material.
Consequent upon the opening of the Ram Janam Bhumi Temple
at Ayodhya, there was considerable agitation among the Muslim
,)-
Community. The Petitioners and appellants were arrested for inciting
the members of the community to indulge in violence and charged for
offences under sections 147/148/149/307/332 of the Indian Penal Code.
While their bail applications were pending; the District Magistrate,
purporting to act under sub.s. (3) of s. 3 of the National Security Act
'¥ 1980, served detention orders on them.
Writ Petitions challenging the detention orders fded by the appel-
lants were rejected by the High Court.
The Petitioners and appellants contended that the detention
orders were bad for the reason that there was no material before the
District Magistrate on the basis of which he could form the opinion that
they would act in future in a manner prejudicial to maintenance of
public order.
Allowing the petitions and appeals, this Court,
A
B
c
D
E
F
HELD: The power to detain under the Act can be exercised only
with a view to preventing a person from acting in a manner which may
prejudice any of the ~onsiderations set forth in Section 3 thereof. Pre-
ventive detention Is not intended as a punitive measure, as a curtailment G
-)-of liberty by way of punishment for an offence already committed. No
· doubt the satisfaction of the District Magistrate making the detention
order is subjective in nature, but, even subjective satisfaction, must be
based upon some pertinent material. [473F-G; 474A-B]
fn this case there is no material to show that the detenus would act H
471
T - -
,.. "~. - -
. ·-·-___ , _______ _
472
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 1987] 3.S.C.R.
A in the future to the prejudice of the maintenance of public order. Even
if it is accepted that the detenus did address the assembly of persons and
incited them to lawlessness, there is no material to warrant the infer-
ence that they would repeat the misconduct or do anything else which
would be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. [473G-H]
B
CRIMINAL
ORIGINAL/APPELLATE
Writ Pet'tion Nos. 300 and 30 I of 1986.
JURISDICTION: -'
c
D
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).
\\ITH
Criminal Appeal Nos. 374-A and 411 of 1986.
From the Judgment and Order dated 31-3-1986 of the Allahabad
.....,
High Court in W.P. Nos. 1448 and 1405 of 1986.
A.K. Gupta for the Petitioners in W.P. Nos. 300 and 30 I of 1986.
S.A. Syed and Shakil Ahmed for the Apellants in Crl. A. Nos.
374A and 411 of 1986.
A.O. Singh, Ms. Rachna Joshi and Dalveer Bhandari for the
Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
-
E
PATHAK, C.J.I. The petitioners Fazal Ghosi and Wahid in the
two writ petitions before us and the appellants Ayaz Ahmad and Riaz )_ --
Ahmad in the two Criminal Appeals are aggrieved by the orders of
detention made respectively in respect of them under sub-s.(2) of s. 3
of the National Security Act, 1980. The petitioners Fazal Ghosi and
Wahid filed writ petitions in the High Court of Allahabad against the
}
F
detention orders concerning them and those writ petitions were dis-
missed. They have now filed the present petitions under Article 32 of
the Constitution. The appellants Ayaz Ahmad and Riaz Ahmad filed
writ petitions in the High Court of Allahabad against the detention
orders concerning them, and those writ petitions having been dismis-
sed they have appealed here by special leave. All the four cases have
G been heard together. It is agreed between the parties that although-{~
separate orders of detention were made under sub-s. (2) of s. 3 of the ·
National Security Act against the various petitioners and appellants
the grounds raised in this court against their detention orders are
identical.
It appears that consequent upon the opening of the Ram Janam
H Bhumi temple at Ayodhya, Faizabad, there was considerable agitation
,
- -
FAZAL GHOSI v. STATE OF U.P. [PATHAK. CJI.J
473
among the Muslim community. According to the State Government.
several members of the community were returning from the mosque A
after their afternoon prayers, and at Hholanath Ka Kuan, Abdul Aziz
Road, Lucknow they wereExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.