JOHN MARTIN versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Citation: [1975] 3 S.C.R. 211 · Decided: 21-01-1975 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KUTTYIL KURIEN MATHEW · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
JOHN MARTIN 
v. 
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL 
Ja11.uary 21, 1975 
[K. K. MATHEW, P. N. BHAGWATI AND N. L. UNTWALIA, JJ.] 
211 
Mailltcnance of Internal Security Act, 1971-S.8(1)-Scope of-Whether a 
reasoned order should be passed by Government-Whether power of dete111io11 
conje.rred on District Magistrate is violative of Art. 19-Detention after drop-
pin11 earlier criminal ca~·es-Whelhl?r ma/a fide. 
Pursuant to an order of detention the petitioner .was arrested under sec-
tion 3(1) & (2) of the M:dntenance of Internal Security Act, 1971, 
In a 
petition under artkle 32 of the Constitution it was contended ( 1) that considera-
tion of the petitioner's ·representation by the State Government instead of by 
an impartial tribunal was not sufficient compliance with the requirement of 
· art. 22(5) of the Constitution; (2) that the. order passed by the State Govern-
ment should have been a reasoned one; (3) that the power of preventive deten-
tion conferred on the District Magistrate under s. 3 of the Act was violative 
of art. r. 19 of the Constitution and (4) that the order of detention was made 
in colourable exercise of power by the District Magistrate since no charge 
sheets were filed against him in respect ·or the two incidents set out in the 
detention order and in fact the cases were dropped. 
Dismissing the petition, 
HELl) : 
( 1) 
It 
is 
indisputable 
on 
a 
plain 
reading 
of 
s. 
8 (1) 
that the representation 
that . may 
be 
maae 
by 
the 
detenu 
is to the appropriate Government and it is the appropriate Government which has 
to consider the representation. This, however, does not mean that the a9pro-
priate Government can reject the reP.resentation of the detenu in a casual and 
mechanical manner. 
The appropriate Government must bring to bear on the 
consideration of the representation an unbiased mind. Art. 22, clause ( 5) 
provides inter alia that the authority making the order of detention shall 
afford the detenu the earliest opportunity of making a representation against 
the order of detention. It does .n.ot say as to which is the authority to which 
the representation shall be made or which authority shaT! consider it. But s.8(1) 
lays down in the clearest terms that the opportu.nity which is to be afforded to 
the detenu is to make a representation against the order of detention to the 
appropriate Government. [214F; 215B; 2141;.-FJ 
Jayanaraya11 Sukul v. State of West Bengal, [19701 3 S.C.R. 225 and 
Harad/ian Saha v. State of West-Bengal, W.P. 1999 of 1973, decided on August 
21, 1974, followed. 
(2) In Haradhan Saha's case it was held that there need not be a speaking 
order. 
There is also no failure of justice by the order not being a speaking 
order. 
All that is necessary is that there should be a real and proper consi-
deration by the Goverqment. [21SF] 
Haradhan Saha v. State of West Bengal, 
W.P. 1999 of 1973, decided on 
August 21, 1974, followed. 
Bhut Nath Mate, v. State of West Bengal, A.I.R. 1974 SC. 806, referred to 
and explained. 
(3) ,It is not possible to say that the District Magistrate is not an officer 
<if sufficiently high status or responsibility to be entrusted with the exercise of 
the power of preventive detention. The District Magistrate is the head of the 
administration of the district a-nd is incharge of maintenance not only of law and 
order but also of public order as also smooth flow of supplies and services 
essential to the community within his district and no fault can, therefore, 
be found with the legislature in entrusting the exercise cl. the power al preven-
tive detention to him in cases where it is ncces.sary to exercise such power toe 
212 
SUPRE)l(!E COURT REPORTS 
[1975] 3 s.c.l\. 
the purpose of mnintenance of security of the State or publi~ order O! uupplies 
and services essential to the community, 
Moreover, exercise of such power 
by the Dlstrkt Magistrate is made subject to the ~upervisory contl'ol andl check 
of the Stnte Government by the provision that the order of detention must be 
ap!)rovecl by the State Government within a period of · t2 days frc1m the 
makinll of the· order of detention. The conferment of such 
~owcr on the 
District Magistrate cannot be regal'ded as an unreasonable restriction on the 
right of personal liberty of a citizen under Art. 19. [2160·0] 
( 4) The order of detention made by the District Magistrate does not suffer 
from the vice of ma/a fides or colourable exeri:ise of power. It is now 

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