HARE RAM PANDEY versus STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 627 · Decided: 10-12-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

HARE RAM PANDEY 
A 
v. 
ST ATE OF BI HAR AND ORS. 
DECEMBER IO, 2003 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] 
B 
Constitution of India, 1950: Article 22. 
Prevention detention-Scope and ambit of-Held: ls an anticipatory 
measure and does not relate to an ?ffence-It is a preventive and 
precautionary measure so that the person detained did not act in a manner C 
prejudicial to the society-Preventive detention is a matter to be left to the 
discretion of the Executive. 
The appellant was directed to be detained by an order passed 
under Section 12 of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981. The D 
appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court contending that 
the order of detention was without authority in law and, therefore, 
deserved to be nullified. The High Court dismissed the writ petition. 
Hence the appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
E 
HELD : 1.1. Preventive detention is an anticipatory measure and 
does not relate to an offence, while the criminal proceedings are to 
punish a person for an offence committed by him. They are not pa"rallel 
proceedings. The object of the law of preventive detention is not F 
punitive but only preventive. It is resorted to when the Executive is 
convinced that such detention is necessary in order to prevent the 
person detained from acting in a manner prejudicial to certain objects, 
which are specified by the concerned law. The action of the Executive 
in detaining a person being only precautionary, the matter has 
necessarily to be left to the discretion of the executive 'authority. It is G 
not practicable to lay down objective rules of conduct in an exhaustive 
manner, the failure to conform to which should lead to detention. The 
satisfaction of the Detaining Authority, therefore, is a purely subjective 
affair. The Detaining Authority may act on any material and on any 
information that it may have before it. Such material and information H 
627 
628 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A may merely afford the basis for a sufficieµtly strong suspicion to take 
action, but may not satisfy the tests of legal proof on which alone a 
conviction for an offence will be tenable. The compulsions of the 
primordial need to maintain order in society without which the 
enjoyment of all rights, jnc~uding the right f<> personal liberty would 
B lose all their meanings are the true jurisdicth.m for the laws· of 
preventive detention. The pr.essur~s of the day in regard to the 
imperativ~s of the security of the State and of public order might 
require the sacrifice of the persona~ liberty of individuals. Laws that 
provide for preventive detention posit that an individual's conduct 
prejudici?I to the maintenance of publi~ order or to the se~urity of 
C State or corroding the financial base provides grounds for satisfaction 
for a reaso~able prognostication of pos~ible future manifestations of 
simi_l.ar propensitie$ on the part of the offender. This juris,Uction has 
been called a jurisdiction of suspicion. The compulsions of the very 
presery11t!o'? of order !"i~~t c~mpel a curtailment fof ~n~,ividual 
D 
li~erty: [63J-~-FJ 
1.2. Th~ actu~l manner of administration of the law of preventive 
detention i~ of utmost imp,~rtance. the faw has to be· justi~ed by the 
genius of its ~dministration so a~ to ·$trike the right balanc.e ):>enyeei.i 
individual liberty on the one hand and the need$ of ap orderly society 
E on the other. [631-G-HJ 
Additional Secretary to the Government of India v. Smt. Alka Subhash 
Gadia, (1992) Supp. 1 SCC 496; Sayed Taher Bawamiya v. Joint 
Sec.retary to the Govt. of India, (2000) 8 SCC .630, Union of Incjia v. 
F Pa.rasmal Rampuria, [1998) 8 SCC 402 a.nd Sunil Fulchand Shah v. Union 
of India, [2000] _3 SCC 409, relied on. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 
655 of 1997. 
G 
From the J_ud.gmen.t and Order da5ed ~.3.97 of tlie Patna f.lig~ ,Court 
in Cr!. 'ti· J.C. No. 144 of 1997. 
Vi,kash Singh, Yunus M~lik and E.C. Vidya Sagar for the Appellant. 
B:B. Singh and Kumar Rajesh Singh for the Respondents. 
H 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
HARE RAM PANDEY v. STATE OF BIHAR [PASAYAT, J.] 629 
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.: Undaunted by the non-success before the A 
Patna High Court and this Couit on selfsame issues the appellant has filed 
this appeal questioning correctness of a judgment of the Patna High Court 
which declined to interfere with an order directing his detention by order 
dated 14.9.1995 in terms of Se

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