JAICHAND LALL SETHIA versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.

Citation: [1966] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 464 · Decided: 27-07-1966 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.N. WANCHOO · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

.JAICHAND LALL SETHIA 
v. 
STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. 
July 27, 1966 
[K. N. WANCHOO, M. HIDAYATULLAH, S. M. SllCRI, V. ilAMASWAMI 
AND J. M. SHELAT, JJ.] 
Defence of India Rules, 1962. r. 30-Detention under-Plea of 
mala fide wliether can be raised-Detenue whether entitled to in-
svect file containi141 order of detention-No mala fides alleged against 
Chief Minister who passed order-His affidavit not necessary. 
A 
B 
The appellant was detained under r. 30 of the Defence of India 
C 
Rules, 1962. He challenged the ocdcr of detention by a petition under 
Art. 226 of the Constitution which was ctsmissed. In appeal before 
this Court by special leave it was urged on behalf of the appellant 
that: (i) the order of detention was mala fi_M; (ii) the High Court in 
not calling for the file of the case and permitting the appellant to 
inspect the matcr;al on the basis of which the order of detention was 
made. committed an error of law; (iii) the High Court should have 
asked for an affidavit from the Chief Minister of the State who 
D 
passed the order of detention. 
HELD: (i) Although in view of the decisions of this Court the 
appellant was entitled to raise the plea of mala Mes despite the 
Proclamation of Emergency and the President's Order which fol-
lowed, the facts of the present case did not justify the plea. [468Hr 
Makhan Singh Tarsikka v. State of Punjab, [19641 4 S.C.R. 932 
and Duraadas Shirali v. Union of India. (1966] 2 S.C.R. 573 referred 
~ 
B 
< 
(ii) The satisfaction of the G<>vernment which justifies the order 
of detention under r. 30 is a subjective satisfaction. A court can 
not normally enquire whether grounds existed which would have 
~-
created that satisfaction on which alone the order could have been 
made, in the mind of a reasonable person. If therefore an authenti· 
cated order of detention is on its face regular and in conformit,y 
with the language of r. 30, it is not ordinarily open to a court to 
enter into an investigation about the suffic:cncy of the material on 
r 
which the order of detention is based. f 469 C-D] 
King Emperor v. S'iibnath Banerjee, 72 I.A. 241, Liversidae v. 
Sir Jolin Anderson (19421 A.C. 206 and Greene v. Secretary of State 
for Ilome Affairs [19421 A.C. 284, referred to. 
Even though the order as drawn up recites that the State Gov-
ernment was satisfied the accuracy of that recital can be challeng-
ed in court to a lim:.ted extent. The accuracy can be challenged in 
two ways, either by proving that the State G<>vernment nC"Ver ap-
G 
plied its mind to the matter or that the authorities of the State 
Government acted mala fide, In a normal case the existence of such 
a recital in a duly authenticated order will. in the absence of any 
evidence as to its inaecuracy, be accepted by the court as estab-
lishing that the necessary condition was fulfilled. However, if the 
order of detention itself suffers from any lacuna it is open to a court 
to call for an affidavit from the Chief Minister or other Minister con-
H 
cerned or to call for the relevant file from the State Government in 
order to satisfy itself as to the accuracy of the recital made In the 
order af detention. [470 F-Hl 
• 
• 
\, 
' 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
' 
F 
G 
H 
JAICHAND LAL 11. w. BENGAL (Ramaswami, J.) 
465 
Biren Dutta etc. v. Chief Commissioner. of Trir:ura, 
[19641 8 
S.C.R. 295 and Jagannath Misra v. State of Orissa. [1966]' 3 S.C.R. 134, 
referred to. 
In the circumstances of the present case summi:>ning of 
th~ file 
by the High Court was not necessary, and the High Court nghtly 
rejected the appellant's prayer for inspection of the file. [471 E-F] 
(iii) As there was no allegation of mala fides or lack of bona fi~es 
with regard to the Chief Minister, it was not necessary for the High 
Court to call for his affidavit. The affidavit of the Deputy Secretary 
to the State Government was in the circumstances of the case, suffi-
cient. r471G-472A] 
1966. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 110 
of 1966. 
Appeal by special ,reave from the judgment and order dated 
February 8, 1966 of the Calcutta High Court in Criminal Misc. 
Case No. 266 of 1965. 
N. C. Chatterjee, S. K. Dutta and D. N. Mukherjee, for the 
appellant. 
C. K. Daphtary, Attorney-General, B. Sen, P. K. Chatterjee 
and P. K. Bose, for the respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Ramaswami, J. This 
appeal 
is 
brought, by special 
leave, against the judgment of the Calcutta High Court dated 
February 8,
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.