MASOOD ALAM ETC. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [1973] 3 S.C.R. 268 · Decided: 11-01-1973 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.A. VAIDYIALINGAM · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

268 
MASOOD ALAM ETC. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
January I I, 1973 
[A. ALAG!RISWAMI, I. D. DUA AND C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, JJ;] 
Mr.inll!nance of Internal Security 
Act, 1971 
Section 3(1), Section 
14(2)- -"Fresh facts"-Whether fre!;/z detention can be orde.red without 
fresh facts after revocation of expiry of the earlier order-Mala (ides--
Whether detention order under Maintenance of /ntlvnal 
Security 
Act 
mc..lafides, 
if 
ohjectionable 
activities 
attract 
preventive 
provisions 
(Chapter Vil/) 
of the Cr. P. C. also-Whether second detention Order 
rendered mala fide by the fact that the order was serl'ed when the detenu 
was already in jail. 
The detenu was arrested on June 15. 1972 under section 3(l)(a)(i) 
a;nd (ii) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971. The order 
was issued on the same' date on which he was arrested under sections 
107/117/151 of the Cr. P. C. 
The order was to expire on the 
26th 
June, 1972 as the same was not approved under s. 3(3) by the Gove'rn· 
ment. 
On 25-6-1972, a fresh order of detention was passed which was 
served on the detenu on 26·6·1972 \.Vh'ile in jail. 
The secqnd order 
did not mention any fresh grounds of detentions. Both the detention 
order were challenged on the grounds (i) that no fresh facts were dis-
closed for the fresh detention as required by s. 14(2) 
of 
act 
and 
(iii) that the orders were nuJa fide. Granting the wTit of habeas corpus 
and directing the release of the petitioner. 
HELD : The second detention order was made without alleging any 
fresh f-acts after the expiry of the first Ord.er. 
The power of preventive 
detention 
is 
an 
extraordinary 
power 
intended 
to 
be 
exercised 
~n extraordinary emergent circumstances. The 
legislative 
scheme of 
ss. 13 and 14 of the Act suggest· that the detaining authority is expect-
ed to know n.nd to take into account all the exising grounds and make 
one order of detention which must not go beyond the periOd fixed and 
fix the maximum period of detention upto 12 months from the date 
of detention. 
It is to effectuate this restriction on. the maximum period 
and to ensure that it is not rendered nugatory or ineffective by resort-
ing to camouflage Of making a fresh order operative soon after 
the 
expiry of the period of detention, and also to 
mi:11imise 
t~ resort 
to detention orders, that s. i4 restricts the detention of a. person on 
given set of facts to the original order and does 1101 pe"rmit 
a 
fresh 
order to be made on the same grounds which were in existence whe.n 
the original order \Vas made. [276H~277D] 
Manubhusan Roy Prodhan v. State of West Bengal, W.P. No. 252 
of 1972 dated 31·10-1972, relied on. 
Sampat Prakash v. State of J, & K .. [1969] 3 S. C. R. 
574, distin-
guished. 
.\ 
B 
c 
0 
E 
F 
G 
If the grounds are relevant and germane to the 
object 
of 
the 
Mainten<i;Tl'Ce of Internal Security Act, then merely because the obj,ection· 
able activities covered thereby also attract the provisions <>f Chapter VIII 
H 
of the Cr. P.C., the preventive det~ntion cannot for that reason alone 
be considered to be ma/a fide provided the authority conce.med iJ satis-
fied of the necessity of the detention as contemplated by the Act. [273C] 
A 
ID 
E 
F 
G 
IH 
MASOOD ALAM "· UNION (Dua, J.) 
Sahib Singh Dugga'· v. Union of lndfo, 
[1966] 
1 S.C. R. 
MohGmmed Salem Khan v. C. C. Bose, A.LR. 
1972 S.C. 
Boriahan Gorey v. State of West Bengal, A.LR. 1972 
S.C. 
relied on. 
269 
313, 
2256, 
2256, 
Merely because a person concerned has been served with a fresh deten~ 
tion order while in custody, that service can.not invalidate the order of 
dete;ntion. 
Although the past conduct, activities and antecedent history 
should be pfoximate in point of time and should have rational con~c­
tion with the necessity for detention, what period 
of 
past 
activity 
should be considered is withi~ the discretion of the detaint:rrg authority. 
[275C-H] 
Ujagar Singh v. State of Punjab, [1952] S.C.R. 757, Makhan Singh 
Tarsikka v. State of Pwijab, A.LR. 1964 S.C. 1120 and Rameshwar 
S/;aw v. District Magistrate Burdwan, (1964] 4 S.C.R. 921, referred to. 
Hadibandhu Das v. The District Magistrate, Cuttack, [1969] I S.C.R. 
227 and Kshetra Gogoi v. State of Assam, [1970] 2 S.C.R. 517, held 
inapplicable. 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petitions Nos. 469 and 470 of 
1972. 
Petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for the 
enforcement of fundamental rights. 
Bashir Ahmadi, K. L. Hathi, Manzar 

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