KSHETRA GOGOI versus STATE OF ASSAM

Citation: [1970] 2 S.C.R. 517 · Decided: 19-09-1969 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.M. SHELAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
KSHETRA GOGOi 
v. 
STATE OF ASSAM 
September 19, 1969 
517 
B 
(J. M. SHELAT, V. BHARGAVA, C. A. VAID!ALINGAM AND 
I. D. DuA, JJ.] 
Preventive Detention Act, 1950, s. 13 (2)-Fresh Order of detentiow 
after expiry of earlier order-Requirements. 
Section 11-A(2) of the Preventive Detention Act lays down in part 
C that the maximum period of detention under s. 3 should be 12 months and 
no more, and after the expiry of that period, that orde~ of detention would 
lapse. A fresh detention order under s. 13(2) can be made on the revo-
cation or expiry of a previous det<:ntion order only in cases where fiesh 
facts have arisen after the date of revocation or expiry. The petitioner. 
was put in detention in pursuance of an order dated AuJ!US1 29, 1968. He· 
presented a petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution for the is.roe of & 
D write of habeas corpus, while this petition was pending, another order of 
detenlioa was issued on August 28, 1969, a day before the expiry of the 
previous order. 
Ibe grounds of detention in this latter order was identical 
to that of August 28, 1968 excepting th~ charge that the petitioner, though. 
in preventive custody was maintaining links with certain named hostile 
persons through friends and relatives and that his liberty would jeopardise-
the security of the State and public order in the region. The petitioner· 
challenged the latter order of detention by adding additional grounds. 
HELD : The order ol detention dated August 28, 1969 was not justified 
under s. 13(2) of the Act, being in violation of the provisions of the Act. 
and was invalid. 
Under sec. 13(2) what is required is that fresh facts 
should have arisen/ aftor the expiry of the previous detention. Facts arising 
during the period of detention, are, therefore, not relevant when applying 
the provisions of s, 13(2). Jn the p<esen~ case, the fresh order was passed 
on 28th August, 1969, a day before the expiry, and it was obvious that 
p 
no fresh facts could by that date arise and yet be held to have arisen after 
the date of expiry. 
It is very difficult to appreciate how a person in 
preventive custody Could continue to maintain links with bis associates 
outside jail, who had gone underground, even through his friends and rela-
tives. If the petition was able to maintain such links, 
it cast a sad 
!reflection on the persoos in charge of him while he was in custody an<J.,_ 
in any case, it would appear that his detention could serve no useful pur .. 
pose. 
Evell. if it be accepted that such links were maintained, this addi· 
G tional groiilld ·mentioned did not satisfy the requirements of s. 13(2) of 
the Act, because the only allegation .was that the links were maintained 
during the period of preventive detention. 
01uGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 211 of 1969. 
Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India for a writ 
H in the nature of habeas corpus. 
Hardev Singh, for the petitioner. 
Naunit Lal, for .the respondent. 
518 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1970] 2 S.C.R. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Bhargava, J. 
The petitioner in this petition under Article 
3 2 of the Constitution was arrested and detained under an order 
made under section 3(l)(a)(ii) of the Preventive Detention Act, 
1950 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act") on 24th April, 1968. 
On 30th August, 1968, he filed a petition in the High Court 
of Assam under Art. 226 of the Consfaution for issue of a writ 
of habeas corpus. The same day he was released by the Gov-
ernment and, according to him, without being set at liberty, he 
was again put in detention in pursuance of a fresh order dated 
29th August, 1968 passed under s. 3(1)(a)(ii) of the Acc. 
The 
grounds of detention were also served on the same day. He made 
his representation on 17th September, 1968 and his case was 
referred to the Advisory Board also on the same date. The 
report of the Advisory Board was received on 28th October, 
1968. 
On 7th November, 1968, his order of detention was 
confirmed by rhe Government on the basis of the report of the 
Advisory Board. 
This petition was then received in this Court 
from the petitioner in July, 1969. challenging his detention 
under the order dated 29th August, 1968. 
The petition came 
up for hearing before a Bench of this Court on 29rh August, 
1969 when, at the request of the counsel for the State of Assam, 
time was granted by the Court till 8th September, 1969 to send 
for full material. Meanwhile, ir appears

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