MADAN GOPE versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Citation: [1975] 3 S.C.R. 531 · Decided: 12-02-1975 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.R. KRISHNA IYER · Disposal: Case Allowed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
MADAN GOPE 
v. 
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL 
. February 12, 1975 
[V. R. KRISHNA.IYER AND R. s. SARI<ARIA, JJ.] 
531' 
Maintenance of lntemal Sec1.l"it)' Act, 1971, s. 3 (1 )-Order of detention for 
malntrnw;cr of public order-If can be justified as for maintenance of essential 
supplics-'S11111ggling' if can prejudice publ'c order-'Public Order', Sf:Ope of. 
The petitioner was detained by an order made under s. 3 of the Maintenance of 
Internal Security A1~t, 1971, to prevent him from acting in any manner preiudicial 
to the maintenance of public order, on two grounds. The activity which consti-
C 
tu!ed the s-ubstratum of the first ground of detention was a case of inter-state smug-
. gling of essential commodities. The oth~r facts mentioned, in addition to smug-
gling in the ground, are (a) that the detenu and h's associates had threatened 
the Home Guards who arrested them, and snatched away the seized commodities 
from the custody of the Hom~ Guards. and, (b) tlmt bis activity came within the 
purview of ss. 143/185/332/506, I.P.C. ands. 7(i)(a) (ii) of Act X of 1955. 
D 
F 
G 
H 
Allowing tl:c petition under Art. 32 challenging the order of detention, 
HELD: (1) Section 3(l)(a) of the Act confers power on the authority to 
detain a person if it is satisfied that such detention is necessary to prevent him 
from acting in a manner prejudicial to, ( i) the defence of India, the relation of 
India with foreign powers, or the security of India, or (ii) the security of the 
State or the maintenance of Public Order, or (iii) the maintenance of supplies 
and services essential to the community. 
The power can be exercised only on 
one' or more of the grounds enumerated, and if the exercise of the power is not, 
on the face of the order, correlated to any of these grounds or concerns a,:tivitie"< r 
which are not germane to any of those grounds, such exercise would be vitiated 
for lack of jurisdiction. Further the satisfaction spoken of in s. 3 (!) which is the 
sine qua non for the exercise of power, is the subjective satisfaction of the au.tho-
rity which cannot be tested in court by objective standards. Ordinarily, therefore, 
the court cannot go behind the satisfaction expressed on the face of the order. 
Thus, where the order ex facie is made with ii view to prevent an act prejudicial 
to the maintenance of public order, the detaining authority cannot be permitted 
to show that in fact the order was made to prevent an act prejudiced to ihe main· 
tennnce of supplies and services essential to the life of the commu.nity. 
[534B·G] 
(2) Ordinarily, smuggling is a ca.Jendestine activity and its concept is repug-
nant to what is public, But 1cases are conceivable where the act of smuggling may 
be accompanied by such violence or disorder that it throws out of gear the even 
tempo of the life of the 9ommunity in the locality or disturbs public tranquillity. 
[535F-H] 
In the present case, there is no mention that the detenu or his associates were· 
armed with any deadly weapons, or that their acts had caused panic and terror 
among the people of the locality. The incident was confined to the detenu and 
his associates on one hand and the home guards who checked them on the other. 
It was not an activity which was prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. 
The first ground of detention had, therefore, no real nexus with the maintenance 
of publk order. 
[536B-C] 
(3) The activity could at the most be said to be an activity affecting law and 
orde.r. The order cannot be justified on the ground that the activity was prcjudi-
ci:;l to the maintenance of su.pplies and services essential to the •community, be-
cause, the Court cannot go behind the subjective satisfaction of the detaining' 
authoritv as expressed in the detention order and permit it to justify its order on 
a ground different from the one menlfoned on the face nf the order. 
The fact 
that the activities of the detenu constituted the various offences ment!.oned in the 
ord·~r was only a conclusion drawn by the authorit)'. 
[536A-B, C-E] 
-5 32 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
( 1975] 3 S.C.R. 
( 4) It could not be said that whenever any act is accompai ned by show of 
force or threat to any public servant entrusted with the maintenance of law and 
order, it must necessarily fall within the category of an act prejudicial to the main-
:tenance of public order. In every case the broad tCllt to be applied is whether the 
act was of sud. a magnitude and gravity tha
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.