LexKAMLAKAR PRASAD CHATURVEDI versus STATE OF M. P. & ANR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
•
-
+
..
. -,r
KAMLAKAR PRASAD CHATURVEDI
v.
STATE OF ·M. P. & ANR.
•
October 7, 1983
[D; A. DESAI, 0. CHINNAPPA REDDY AND A. ·VARADARAJAN, JJ.).
Naiiona/ Securi(y Act, 1980-Section 3(1) anti (l)-SciJpe of--Detention
order-Made on two or inore grounds-Not to be .deemed ro _have bee'h _made
seperately on each ground-Ground relating to five year old incident:-Too remote
ond slalt-:Detention order viti'('led.
The petitie:ner who was detained under sec. 3(2) of the National _Security
Act, 1980, was ~onveyed seven grounds of detention by the Detai~ing · ~utho--' ·
rity. The first tWo grounds related to the incidents -that occurred more than
S years and about 3 years respectively prior to the date of the order of
detention. The petitioner challenged the order of detention as vitiated on
account of the ~rounds of d~tention ,being vague and sta~e .• _ :
A.itowing the writ petition ~y majo~ity,
HE~D : The order of detention is quashed.
(Per. Chinnappa Reddy and Varadarajan, JJ.)
It is not open to the Detaining Authority to pick up an old and .stale
incident and hold it as "the basis of an order of detention under S.3(2) of the
Act. Nor it is cpen to the Detaining Authority to contend that it has been
mentioned only ·to show that the detenu has a tendency to create problems
resulting in disturbanCe to public order, for as ~ matter of fact it has been
mentioned as a ground of detention.
0[327 E-F]
Shalini Soni v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 431; Mehdi Mohamed Joudi
v. Staie of Maharqshtra, (1981) 2 S.C.C. 358;' Taramati Chan.du/al •· State of
Maharashtra AIR 1981 SC 871; and Shibban Lal Saksena v. The State of Uttar,
Pradesh. (1954) 4 S.C.R. 418 refetred to.
.
, .
In the instant case the first two incidents which are of 1978 and 1980
are mentioned as grounds of detention in the o~der dated 6-5-1983. There can
be no dotlbt that these .grounds especially grounds No.1 rClating ·to an incident·
or 1978 .,;, too remote and not proximate to ·the Order of detention. [327 D-E]
There is op provision in the National Security Act, 1!180 similar to s.SA
of the Conservation of Fofeign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling
Activities Act, 1974 which says t_hat where a person has been detained in,
·pursuance of an Order of detentjon un4~r syb-~ec .. (1) of . S,3
\\'hi~h has b~cn,
A
D ..
B
c
D
E
'
G
H
•
318
SUPIEMB COURT REPORTS
(1984) 1 s.c.R ..
made oii two or more grounds, such Order of detention shall be deemed to ..
have been rn·ade separately on each of such grounds and accordingly (a) such
Order shall not be deemed to be invalid or inoperative merely because one or
some of the g_rounds is or are vague, non-existent, non-reICvant, not connected
or not proximately connected with such persons or invalid for anY other
reason, and it is not therefore_ possible to hold that the Government or officer
inaking such order would have been satisfied as provided in .sub-sec. (1) of s.3
• with reference to the remaining groµnd· or grounds and inade \he order.of
detention and (b) the Government or Officer making the order of detention
shall be deemed to have made the order of detention under the said sub-sec; (I)
after being satisfied as provided in that sub-section with reference to tha
remainin11 ground or grounds. (327 F-H; 328,AJ
,
In the present case, therefore, it cannot be postulated what view would
have ·been taken by the Deta1Ding :AuthOrity ab6ut the need to-detain the
petitioner unde:r sec. 3(2) of the Act if .be had· hot ·taken into account the
stale and not proximate grounds 1 and 2 into consideration in arrivins at the
subjective satisfaction, [328 A-BJ
.. ,
(Per Desai J,)
'
i.,:
- ' > j
When criminal actitit~ -of. _a perSon leads te such a drastic action as
detention without trial, ordinarily a single stray incident may not unless
contrary is shown be sufficient to inv~ke such drastic power of' preventive
detention .. In order to avoid the charge that a siray incident was seized upon
to invoke such drastic power of preventive detention the authority charged with
a duiy to maintain public order of a"ssure security of the State. may keep a
close watch on the activities oJ the miscre'ant for some time and repeated
indulgence into prejudicial activity may permit an inference that· unless pre ..
ventive detention is ·resorted to, it would ·not be possible to wean away Such
person from such prejudicial activity. (319 G-H; 320 A-BJ
In the instant case theExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.