MOHD. SUBRATI ALIAS MOHD. KARIM versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Citation: [1973] 2 S.C.R. 990 · Decided: 14-11-1972 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.A. VAIDYIALINGAM · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

990 
MOHD. SUBRATI ALIAS MOHD. KARIM 
v. 
STATE OF WEST BENGAL 
November 14, 1972 
[A. ALAGIRISWAMI, I. D. DUA AND C. A. 
VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.] 
Maintenance oj"/11te1nal Security Act (26 of 1971), s. 3 (I) and (2) 
-Scope of. 
Duty of Srate to place before Court all mal/ers relev11111 to the deten-
. tion and of officers swearing to affidarifs to be careful. 
The petitioner committed thefts of electric copper wire and when 
challenged by the inhabitants of the are» he and his associates hurled 
bombs at them. 
The thefts totally disrupted' the electric supply 
for. 
several hours in the areas concerned. 
The petitioner was detained by· 
an order of preventive detention under s. 3(1) and (2) of the Mainten-
ance of Internal Security Act, 1971. 
In a petition under Art. 32 he 
contended that he ought to have. been proceeded against in a court o'f 
law a.id that the investigating agency did not put him on a regulat trial 
for want of evidence. 
HELD: (I) (a) 
1 The Act was necessitated because in view of the· 
prevailing situation in the country and the developments ·across the 
border the existing laws available to deal with the situatioo were found 
to be inadcqul>te arid it was considered necessary for urgent and effec'tive 
preventive action, in the interest of national security, to have powers of 
preventive detention to deal effectively with threats to the defence and 
the security of India. 
Section 3 of the Act carries out the statutory pur_. 
pose of prevcotivc detention and has nothing to do with trial and punish-
ment Of persons for comn1ission of offences. If, therefore, for any reason, 
it is not possible to successfully try and secure the conviction ""d im-
prisonment of the persons concerned for their past activities, \Vhich 
amount to an offence, but which arc also relevant for the satisfaction 
of the detaining authority for considering it necessary that a detention 
order under s. 3 be mr..je for preventing such persons from acting in 
a prejudicial manner as contemplated by the section. then the Act would 
indisputably be attracted and a detention order can appropriately be 
made. The detention order in 'Such a case cannot be challengeJ on the 
ground that the detained person should have been tried for the offence 
committed or that proceedings under Chap. Vlll ·er. P. C. 
could have 
"ecn initiated against him. The Act creates in the authorities concerned, 
a new jurisdiction to make orders of preventive detention on their sub-
jective satisfaction of grounds Of suspicion of commission in future of 
acts prejudicial to the community. This jurisdiction is different from that 
o'f Judicial trial in .courts and of judicial orders for prevention of offences. 
Therefore, even an unsuccessful judicial trial -or proceeding would ro! 
oocrate ·as a bar to the ·detention order. or rend.-r it mala fide. [993 B·H; 
994 A-CJ 
Sahih Si1111h Duf'm/ v. Union of India. [19661 1 S.C.R. 313, S. C. Bose 
& anr. v. C. C. Bose [1972] 2 S.C.C. 607 and Borjahan Gorey v. State of 
West Be1111al [ 1972] 2 S.C.C. 550 followed 
(b) The right to personal liberty is protected by the Constitution. but 
this liberty is not absolute and is not to be understood to amount to 
license to indulge in activities which wrongfully and unjustly deprive the 
community 
or 
society 
of 
essential 
services 
and 
supplies. 
The 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
MOHD. SUBRATI V. WEST BENGAL (Dua, /,) 
991 
right of society as a whole is, from its very nature, of much greater im· 
portance than that of an individual, and m case of conJ!ict between the 
two, the individual's right is subjected by the Con•titution to reasonable 
restriction to the larger interests of society. [996 D-FJ 
(c) In the present case, the grounds of detention are clear, relevant 
and germane to the object and purpose for which preventive detention is 
authorised by the Act, and the detention order is not open to challenge. 
(996 B·D] 
(2) This Court normally accepts without 'reservation the sworn aft!· 
davits of responsible officers on the assumption that the facts staled therein 
are ~bsolutely true and Jhat there is no mis-statement or concealment of 
relevant facts. It is therefore obligatory on the part of the State to place 
before the Court all the relevant facts relating to the impugned detention 
truly, clearly and with utmost ftloirness, and it is incumbent on the officer 
concerned, swearing the counter affidavit, to take good care to satisfy 
hims

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