JOYDEB GORAI versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Citation: [1973] 1 S.C.R. 714 · Decided: 24-07-1972 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.M. SHELAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

714 
JOYDEB GOKAI 
v. 
STATE OF WEST BENGAL 
July 24, 1972 
(J. M, SHELAT, I. D. DUA AND H. R. KHANNA, JJ.] 
West Bengal (Prev.enti'.on of Violent Activities) Act (19 of 1970), 
s.3(1) (2) (d) mtd (3)-Threct lo kill a person and disturbing public 
order-if valid ground of detention-Period 
h~ithin which c·onfinnation 
of order of detention by State Govemmcnt should be passed. 
Section 3(2) (d) of the West Bengal (Prevention of Violent Activities) 
Act, 1970, amongst other things, provides that the committing of 
any 
ot1ence punishable with imprisonment for a term extending lo 7 years or 
more, where the commission of such offence disturbs or is likely to disturb 
public order would be within the definition of the expmsion "acting in any 
manner prejudicial to the maintenancb of public l'lrder". 
In pursuance of un order under s. 3 (I) and ( 3) of the Act, 
the 
petitioner '"as arreste<,I on August 6, 1971, wi:h a view to preventin1. him 
tr.1m acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public ordrr. 
One of the grounds furnished to him was that he threatened to kill a 
person on account of his refusal to rub out the anti-naxalite slogan.• 
~·r.i.tten on the wall of his house, that the threat terrorised the oommon 
public and as such they could not pur" ue their normal avocations, and thal 
he disturbed public order. 
The State Government donfirmed tee order 
on October 28, 1971, after receipt pf the opinion of the Advisory lloard. 
(Dismissing the petition under Art. 32 
Challenging 
the 
order o( 
tWention. 
HELD : (1) Under s. 506 I.P.C., a threat to commit an offence !)unish-
ablc with death or imprisonment for life shall be punishable witt unprison-
1nent of either description for a term which may extend to 7 years. Hence 
the ground furnished was not extraneous or irrelevant since the petitioner 
had committed an offence enumerated in s. 3(2) (d) and there was di'-
turbance of public order. 
[716A-Cl 
(2) There was no delay in pas<ing the order of confirm1tion, aince 
it wao passed before the 
expiry of three 
months 
from .he date of 
<.ktention. 
[716H] 
Deb Sadhan Ro,v v. West Bmgcl, [1972] l S.C.C. 308 and Ujjal Mandal 
v. West Bengal, [1972] I S.C.C. 456. followed, 
A 
B 
c 
D 
F 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 39 of 1972. 
G 
Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India fo~ the 
enforcement of fundamental rights. 
S. Lakshminarasu, for the petitioner. 
G. L. !t{ukhoty and Sukumar Basu, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
H 
Shelat, J. The District Magistrate, Burdwan, passed the 
order impugned in this petiti6n on July 14, 1971 directing the 
A 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
JOYDEB v. WEST BENGAL (She/at, J.) 
115 
petitioner's detention under sub-sec. ( 1) read witli sub-sec. (3) 
of sec. 3 of the West Bengal (Prevention of Violent Activities') 
Act, being President's Act XIX of 1970, on the ground that such 
detention was necessary "with a view to preventing him from 
acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public 
order". 
In pursuance of the order the petitioner was arrested 
on August 6, 1971 when he was furnished, as required by the 
Act, the grounds of detention. 
'There is no disput that >.onsequent upon the passing of th~ 
said order the Government of W.est Bengal and the other relevant 
authorities under the Act duly took all consequential steps, such 
a,, the reporting to and obtaining the Government's order of 
approval, reporting to the Central Govrrunent, disposal of the 
petitioner's representation, referring the. petitioner's case to the 
Advisory 1loard and obtaining its opinion etc., within the rea-
pcctive times prescribed by the Act.· 
Two grounds questioning the validity of the said order and 
the detention thereunder were, however, urged by Mr. Lakshmi-
narasu, appearing for the petitioner amicus curiae. The first wa.• 
that the first ground in the grounds of detention was irrelevant 
and therefore vitiated the entire order. 
The second was that 
there was undue delay in the confirmation by the State Govern-
ment of the detention ordoc and the continuance of detention 
thereunder after the expiry of three months of detention. 
The first ground in the grounds of detention runs as follows : 
"That on 7-2-71 at 13-30 hours you 
and your 
associates had been to the house of Shri Bibhuti Bhusan 
Ghosh of Ranchi Dhowrah, Police Station Kulti, and 
asked him to rub [out) the anti-naxalite slogans written 
on the wall of his ho

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