G. SADANANDAN versus STATE OF KERALA & ANR.

Citation: [1966] 3 S.C.R. 590 · Decided: 11-02-1966 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Case Allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

590 
G.SADANANDAN 
v. 
STATE OF KERALA & ANR. 
February 11, 1966 
[P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C. J., K. N. WANCHOO, 
M. HIDYATULLAH, J.C. SHAH AND 
S. M. S!KRI, JJ.) 
Defence of India Rules, 1962 Ruic 30(1)(b)-DetentiOn under-
Wril petition by de1enu-Pleas that may be entertained by court durin1 
operation of Emergency and Presidenl's Order--Obllga1wn of detaining 
authoriry to place material justifying detention before coll1't-Proper affi. 
davll mu.st be filed by authorised person. 
The petilioner was a wholesale dealer in Ker09elle oil in Kera!a State. 
The State Government detained him under r. 30(l)(b) of the Defence 
of India Rules, 1962 on the alleged ground that he was likely to act in 
a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential 
to the life of the community. By writ petition under Art. 32 of the Consti-
tution ho challenged his detention as being maia fide, making certain specific 
allegations against respondent No. 2, a police official. 
In particular, it 
was urged on his behalf that after the coming into operation of the Kerala 
Keroaene Control Order, 1965 which permitted kerosene trade to be carried 
on only under a licence, Ibero was no justification for bis detention. On 
behalf of the State an affidavit was filed by the Home Secretary generally 
denying the petitioner's allegations. The affidavit stated, Inter alia, that 
even after the passing of the Kerala Kerosene Control Order it was possi· 
blc for the petitioner to obtain a licence and carry on the trade in a pre· 
judicial manner. 
HELD : (i) The Proclamation of Emergency and the 
notification 
subsequently issued by the President constitute a bar against judicial scru-
tiny in respect of the alleged violation of the fundamental right\ of a 
detenu. 
Nevertheless a detenu can urge in his support such statutory 
safeguards as 
are pcrmis.ible under the Rules, and when this Court is 
satisfied that the impugned orders suffer from serious infirmities on grounds 
which it is permissible for the detenu to urge, the aaid orders would be set 
aide. (595 D, E] 
(ii) The detention of a citizen under the Defence of India Rules is 
the result of the subjective satisfaction of the appropriate authority; and 
so if a prime facie case is made out by the petitioner that hi• dctontion ii 
either ma/a fide, or is the result of a casual approach adopted by the ap-
propriate authority, the appropriate authority should place before the court 
sufficient material in the form of proper affidavit made by a duly authorised 
person to show that the allegations made by the petitioner about the 
casual character of the decision or it> ma/a fules, are not well-founded. (598 
Fl 
In the present case no such material had been placed before the court. 
Respondent No. 2, though implcaded, had not come forward to deny the 
specific lllcgations made against him. The Home Secretary had taken it 
upon himself to deny the allegations against respondent No. 2, but hia 
denials were at best based on hearsay evidence. The Home Secretary"• 
affidavit suff~red from the formal defect that it did not distinguiYI ~ 
statements based on personal knowledge and those made on the basis of 
information received. 
It moreover gave no sufficient )ustification for the 
B 
c 
D 
• 
I' 
G 
H 
-A 
... 
• ' 
( 
:B 
I 
-' ·r 
-
'<= 
D 
• 
E 
F 
G 
_.. 
.. 
H 
lilADANANDAN V. KERALA (Gajendragadkar, C.l.) 
591 
continuance of the petitioner's detention after the passing of the Kerala 
Kerosene Control Order. {596 E, FJ 
Under the circumstances there was no escape from the conclusion that 
the impugned order was clearly and plainly ma/a {idt. 
(iii) It is the paramouut requirement of the Constitution that even 
during Emergency, the freedom of Indian citizens cannot be taken away 
without the existence of the justifying necessity specified in the Rules 
themselves. 
The tendency to treat these matters in a somewhat casual 
and cavalier manner which may conceivably result from the continuous 
use of such unfettered powers, may ultimately pose a seiious threat to the 
basic values on which the democratic way of life in this couutry is founded. 
Cases of this kind may be rare; but even the presence of such rare case& 
constitutes a warning deserving the attention of the authorities. [599 B, CJ 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 136 of 1965. 
Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India for the 
enforcement of Fundamental Rights. 
M. K. Ramamurthi, S. C. Agarwal, R
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.