IN RE : SUSHANTA GOSWAMI AND OTHERS versus NO RESPONDENT

Citation: [1969] 3 S.C.R. 138 · Decided: 17-12-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

IN RE: SUSHANTA GOSWAMI AND OTHERS 
A 
v. 
December 17, 1968 
{J. C. SHAH, V. RAMASWAMI AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 22(5)-Preventive Detention Act 4 
of 1950 s. 3(2)-Grounds of detention-Detention cannot be upheld if 
anv of the grounds is irrelevant-'Maintenance of public 
order' 
when 
affected. 
The petitioners were detained under the Preventive Detention Act. 
1950. They filed a petition for Habeas Corpus under Art. 32 of the 
Constitution. The Court considered their cases individually in the light 
of the grounds of detention supplied to them. 
HELD : ( i) If some of the grounds whid,h are given are irrelevant the 
order of detention cannot be upheld because the court cannot predicate 
what the subjective satisfaction of the authority would have been on the 
exclusion of those reasons. [139 HJ 
Dwarka Do• Bhatia v. The State of Jammu & Kashmir, [l956J. S.C.R 
945 and Pushkar Mukherjee v. State of West Bengal. [1969J 2 S.C.R 
635, applied. 
(ii) The grounds supplied to most of the petitioners were not relevant 
to the 'maintenance of public order'. 
The contravention of any 
law 
always affects order but before it can be said to affect public order it 
must affect the public or the community at large. 
A mere disturbance 
of law and order leading to disorder is not necessarily sufficient for action 
under the Act but a disturbance which will affect public order can alone 
justify detention under that head. [141 B-C] 
(iii) Citizens must not be detained under the Act for petty matters 
and the grounds must be reasonably proximate in time. [141 DJ 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petiti~ No. 328 of 1968. 
Petition under Art. 3 2 of the Constitution of India for a writ 
in the nature of habeas corpus. 
R. K. Garg, for the petitioners. 
Debabratao Mukherjee, P. K. Chakravarti and G. S. Chatterje, 
for the respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Grover, J. This is a petition under Art. 32 of the Constitu 
tion by Sushanta Goswami and 46 others for a writ in the nature 
of Habeas Corpus challenging the. detention of the petitioners 
~it1der the provisions of the Preventive Detention Act 1950, here-
mafter called the "Act". 
Petitioner No. 4 Krishna Monda! and Petitioner No. 21 Madhu 
Kanjilal are stated to have been released. 
No orders need he 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
.D 
H 
SUSHANTA GOSWAMI, IN RE (Gre>ver, J.) 
139 
made with regard to them. As regards petitioners Nos. 2, 8, 9, 
15, 22, 24, 32, 41 and 4 7 their matters will be taken up for con-
sideration later as the State has been directed to file further affida-
vits. 
We now proceed to dispose of the cases of the other peti-
tioners. 
Petitioner No. 1 (Sushanta Goswami).-This petitioner was 
detained by an order of the District Magistrate 24 Parganas dated 
July 30, 1968. His detention was directed under s. 3 ( 2) of the 
Act. on the ground that it was necessary with a view to preventing 
him from aeting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of 
public order. The grounds were supplied to him and he made 
a representation to the Advisory Board which, after hearing the 
petitioner and considering his representation, expressed its opinion 
that there was sufficient cause for his detention. Consequently the 
detention order dated July 30, 1968 was confirmed on September 
20, 1968 by the Government of West B~ngal. The grounds for 
detention have been perused by us. According to the first ground 
the petitioner had been committing offences of forming unlawful 
assembly, assaulting the police and peaceful inhabitants, snatch-
ing irway cash and valuables, teasing school girls and criminal inti-
midation. The instances which were given are seven out of which 
it is necessary to mention only the following which are typical : 
"(ii) That on 14-11-66 at 21.15 hrs., you with your 
associates formed an unlawful assembly on Dum Dum 
Road in front of the Fire Brigade Office and assaulted 
Shri Pranab Bose of P-18 Matijheel Avenue and you 
snatched away a fountain pen worth Rs. 10 from his 
pocket. 
(vi) That on 18-3-68 at 19.30 hrs., you with your 
associates closely followed 
Sm. Sipra Kundu ( 18) 
from Satgachi crossing on Jessore Road and uttered 
fndecent language towards her, as a result of which 
she got terrified and ran away to save her modesty." 
Ground No. II is to the effect that as a result of the petitioner's 
nefarious activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order 
he has become a nuisance to the society

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