JAGANNATH MISRA versus STATE OF ORISSA

Citation: [1966] 3 S.C.R. 134 · Decided: 17-12-1965 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Case Allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

JAGANNA1H MISRA 
v. 
STATE OF ORISSA 
December 17, 1965 
[P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J., K. N. WANCHOO, 
M. HIOAYATULLAII, V. RAMASWAMI AND 
P. SATYANARAYANA RAJU, JJ.) 
Dtftnce of India Act and 
Rule.r, 
1962. Ruk 30(1)(b)--Ordtr 
urukr-Grounds of detention-Application of mind by detaining autho-
riry-Ntcessiry of-. 
The petitioner was deta:ned by an order issued under r. 30(l)(b) of 
the Defence of India Rules. 
He 
challenged the detention order in a 
petition under An. 32 of the Coiutitution mainly on the ground that the 
order enumerated six oMt of eight possible grounds of detention wh'ch 
showed that the detaining authority had not really applied its mind to 
the matter. The affidavit filed by the Home Minister staled that the de-
tention order was made on his personal satisfaction that it was necessary 
to detain the petitioner under the Rules "with a view to prevent him from 
acting in a manner prejudicial ID the safety of India and maintenanee of 
public order etc." 
HELD: (i) The order of detention under r. 30(1) (b) of the R~ 
deprives a citiun of this country of his personal liberty and in view of 
the mspension of some of the fundamental rights by the President on 
account of the emergency, 
a citizen has very limited opportunity 
of 
challonging an order of detention properly passed 
under 
!he 
Rules. 
Section 44 of the Defence of India Act says that there should be as little 
interference with the ordinary avocations of life and the enjoyment of 
propeny as may be consonant with the ensuring of the publ'c safety 
and interest and the Defence of India and Civil 
Defence. If in ony 
case it appears that the detaining authority did not apply its mind pro-
perly before making the order of detention the order in question would 
not be an order under the Rules and the per,;on detained would be entiU-
ed to release. [137 F-138 CJ 
(ii) Of the eight grounds of detention in s. 3(2) (15) of the Defence 
of India Ao: one refers 10 foreigners 1.e. of being of hostile origin. 
An 
Indian Citizen can thus be detained on seven po;sible grounds and 
the 
detention order in the present case mentioned six of them. However in 
B 
c 
D 
the affidavit filed by the Minister only 
two of these 
ground• namely 
safety of India and the maintenance of publ;e order "ere mentioned. In 
G 
these circumstances there could be little doubt that the authority con-
cerned did not apply its mind properly before the order in Question waa 
passed in the present case. Such a discrep:!ncy 
between 
the grounds 
mentioned in the order and the grounds staled in 
the affidavit of the 
authority concerned can only show an amount of ca~ualn~ in oassinsi: 
the order of detention against the provisions of s. 44 of the Act. [IJB D-Hl 
Casualn~ was '3.lso apparent from the conjunctive ·or' u!\ed in 
the 
order showin~ that it was more or less a copv of s. 3(2)(15). The u"' 
of the word 'etc.' in the affidavit was another exampte of casual~. This 
casualness showed that the mind of the authority concerned was really 
not applied to the question of detention of the petitioner. The order of 
H 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• • 
.JAGANNATH v. ORISSA (Wanchoo, J.) 
135 
A 
detention passed without application of mind was no order under 
tho 
Rules and the petitioners was entitled to release. [139 Cl 
(iii) The fact that the order of detention 
was not written by 
the 
' 
Minister himself but by his subordinates was irrelevant. It is the duty 
, 
of the Minister to see that the order issued is in accordance with his 
satisfaction and carries out his directions. [139 GI 
• 
•• 
B 
c 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 97 of 1965. 
Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India for the 
enforcement ot fundamental rights. 
R. K. Garg for the petitioner. 
N. S. Bindra and R. N. Sachthey for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Wanchoo, J. This petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 
Art. 32 of the Constitution was heard by us on December 7, 
D 
1965. We then directed the release of the petitioner and indica-
ted that reasons wlll follow later. We proceed to do so now. 
The petitioner was detained by an order issued under r. 30· 
( 1) (b) of the Defence of India Rules (hereinafter referred to. 
as the Rules) by the Government of Orissa on December 29, 
E 
1964. 
He raised a number of grounds challenging his detention. 
It is unnecessary to refer to all the grounds raised by the petitioner. 
It is enough to say that one of the grounds rais

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