LexMOHAMMAD YOUSUF RATHER versus THE STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
258
A
MOHAMMAD YOUSUF RATHER
v.
THE STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND ORS.
August 10, 1979
8
[R. S. SARKARIA, P. N. SHINGHAL AND 0. CHINNAPPA REDDY, JJ.]
c
Jarnnzu & Ka.<ihmir Public Safety Act 1978 Sec. 8(a)(i), 8(3){b), Pream-
ble-"Acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order"-
Mcaning-Scope of.
Constitution of Indio, Articles I9(I)(d), 21, 22(4)(5)(6)(7) and 32.
The petitioner challenged his detention under the Jammu & Kashmir Public
Safety Act, 1978. The grounds of detention were sent to hin1 by way of an
annexure to the District Magistrate's order of detention. The petitioner \Vas
informed that, if he so desired, he could make a representation to the Govern-
ment against the alleged order of detention.
'D
It was argued on behalf of the petitioner that so1ue of the grounds of deten~
tion were so vague that he did not find it possible to exercise his fundait11ental
right of making a representation under article 22(5) of the Constitution and
that son1e of the grounds \.vere irrelevant for the purposes of n1aking an or<ler
under section 8.
HELD : The argument that only the '"prean1ble" of the order of detention
E
\vas vague but not the grounds is not tenable.
[264B]
"Preamble" has been defined "a.g an introductory paragarph or part in a
statute deed, or other document setting forth the grounds and intention of it".
The preamble thus betokens that which follows. The respondents' counsel did
not, however, find it possible to point out where the preamble could be said
to begin, or to finish, and which of the paragraphs could be said to constitute
'F
the grounds of detention as such.
[262 G-H, 263A]
H
This Court has disapproved of vagueness in the grounds of detention because
that impinges on the fundamental right of the detenu under article 22(5)
of
the Constitution to make a representation against the order of detention when
tJ.1e grounds on which the: order· has been made or communicated to hiin. The
purpose of the requirement is to afford him the earliest opportunity of seeking
redress against the order of detention. But, as is obvious, that opportunity
cannot be said to be afforded when it is established tha-t a ground of detention
is so vague that he cannot possibly make an effective representation. Reference
made to paragraphs which were held to be vague.
[263E, H, 264 B-D]
State of Bo1nbay v. Atma Rani Sridhar Vaidya (1951) S.C.R. 167, Iarapada
De and Ors. v. The State of West Bengal, (1951) S.C.R. 212, Dr. Rain Krislian
Bhardwaj v. State of Delhi and Ors., (1953) S.C.R. 708, Shlbban Lal Saxena v.
State of Uttar Pradesh [1954} S.C.R. 418, Rameshwar Lal Patwari v. State of
Bihar and Ors., [1968] 3 S.C.R. 587, and Puslikar Mukher;ee and Ors. v. State
of West Bengal, [1969] 2 S.C.R. 635.
r
I '
'
r
' 1
•
' . .i
MOHD. YOUSUF V. J, & K.
259
It is equally \veil settled that a ground is said to be1 irrelevant when it has
no connection with the satisfaction of the authority n1aking the order of deten-
tion under the appropriate law and taking any such ground into consideration
vitiates the order of detention. It was held that
irrelevant
grounds
were,
nevertheless, taken into consideration for n1aking the impugned order, and that
was quite sufficient to vitiate it.
[267 A-B]
Keshav Talpade v. The King Emperor, (1943) F.C.R. 49, Satya Brata Ghose
v. Mi·. Arif Ali, District Magistrate Shibsagar, Jorhat and Ors., (1974) 3 SCC
600, and K. Yadava Reddy and Ors. v. The Con11nissioner of Police, Andhra
Pradesh, Hyderabad aad Anr., I,L.R. 1972 Andhra Pradesh !025, affirmed.
Chinnappa Reddy, J. (Concurring)
HELD : A law providing for preventive detention and action taken under
such a laiw, to pass muster, have to satisfy the requiren1ents of both Articles 19
and 22 of the Constitution. [2680-E]
The interpretation of Article 22(5) consistently adopted by this Cou1t is,
perhaps, one of the outstanding contributions of the Court in the cause of
Hurnan Rights.
The law is now well settled that a detenu bas two rights under
Article 22(5) of the Constitution (1) to be informed as soon as may be, of
the grounds on which the order of detention is based, that is, the grounds
which led to the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority and (2) to be
afforded the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order
of detention, that is, to be furnished with sufficient particulars to enable him
to make a representation wExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.