RAM BAHADUR RAI versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

Citation: [1975] 2 S.C.R. 732 · Decided: 12-11-1974 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Case Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

132 
RAM BAHADUR RAI 
v. 
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. 
November 12, 1974 
[Y. V. CHANDRACHUD AND P. N. BHAOWATI, JJ,] 
A 
Prtvtntivc Detcntion-EflectlVe representation af(alnst order of de1e111io11, 
B 
-Grounds of detention, when to be read as inter-related-Petitioner, wht?tlier 
.entitled to have notice of inter-play of one gr0und on a11other. 
Maintenance of lnf!)rnal Security Act, Section 3 ( 1) (a) (ii)-"Guj1irat type 
.of agitation In Bihar"-Expresslon, if vague. 
. 
. 
On April 9, 1974, ht the exercise of powers c_onferred by section 3(1)(~)(ii) 
.of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, the District Magistrate, Piltna, 
made an order directing that the petitioner, who is a student leader, be detained 
C 
with a . view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the 
maintenance qf public or<ler. · The order of detention sel'Ved on him on April 
13, 1974, contained seven grounds. The order was confirmed by the Governor 
.of Bihar on May 28, 1974. 1bc petitioner filed a Writ Petition in the High 
·Court at Patna under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity 
.of the detention order on various grounds. The petition was dismissed by the 
High Court. This Court granted special leave to appeal from the judgn1ent 
.of the High Court. Rule was also 1sucd in the Writ Petition filed by the 11eti-
D 
tloner under Article 32 of the Constitution. 
It was contended for the petitioner that the grounds of detention furnished 
to blm are vague, that some of the allegations contained in the grounds are 
ialse and that the grounds bear no relevance tO the object of de~ntion, namely, 
1he maintenance of public order. 
Setting aside the order of detention an1l makin11 the Rule absolute. 
HELD·. (I) The 11round~ of detention do not furnish intrinsic aid to justify 
E 
the conclusion that all of them are inter-related. Nor is there any material to 
come to the conclusion that the petitioner can be said to have had notice of 
.such in:tel:-play of one ground on another. [737BJ 
(ii) The first ground contains theSe particulars : (1) The petitioner, in his 
.capacity as Secretary of All India Vidyarthi Parishad, attended a meeting of the 
Bihar Rajya Chatra Neta Sammelan held on 17th and \8th February, 1974, 
in the Patna l)niversity camP1.1s; (2) A de~ision was taken in those meetings 
F 
:at the instance of the 'petitioner that a Gujarat tyJ).' agitation should be started 
in Bihar; and (3) It was also. decided in those meetings to resort to hunger 
·strike and to B>herao the office of the Bihar Chief Minister, the Patni. Disu'ict 
Magistrate and other officials. By the. second ground the following particulars 
yiere furnished to the petitictner (1) A meeting of the Students Steering Com-
mittee was held 011 March 1, 197 4 under Presidentship of Shri Laloo Prasad 
Yadav; (2) it was decided in that meeting to form a San;:halan Samiti 
f:or 
conducting the students agitation and (3) the petitioner readily agreed in that 
G 
meeting to become a member of the Sanchalan Samiti. It 1s impossible · by 
merely reading these particulars to decipher the connection between grounds 
1 and 2. Grounds I a·nd 2 must be read disjunctive!)(, each one referring to 
a distinct episode. One is not a sequel to the other and the validity of the 
'two grounds has to be determined independently on the merits of ea<:h. 
[73 7C·D} 
(iii) One of the allegations in ground 110. 1 is that, in the meethig of the 
Bihar Rajya Chatra Net& Sammelan, it was decided at the 
insta1~=e of the 
petitioner "to start a Gujarat type of agitation in 
Bihar." The reforen•:e 
H 
·obviously is to the recent happenings in Gujarat which culminated in the dis-
solution of the State Legislature and the introduction of the Presidents Rule. 
The Court may and ought to take judicial notice of well-known facts of con-
temporary life. But it is very difficult to comprehend the true connotation of 
A 
B 
c 
R. M. RAI v. BIHAR (Chandrachud, /.) 
733 
the so-called Gujarat type of agitation. It may inean differently to different 
people and is, therefore, vague. 
The ·:oun will be treading on a dangerous 
ground if it attempted to interpret judicially the genesis of recent political 
events. The court cannot assume that the decision to start a 'Gujarat type of 
agitation' meant a clarion call to violence. If the charge be that the petitioner 
had preached violence, the grounds of detention must say so. If the petitioner 
was not apprised of what was trulr 

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