SAMPAT PRAKASH versus STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR

Citation: [1969] 3 S.C.R. 574 · Decided: 06-02-1969 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

574 
SAMPAT PRAKASH 
v. 
STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR 
February 6, 1969 
[J. C. SHAH, V. RAMASWAMI AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.) 
Jammu and Kashmir Preventi.-e Detention Act (! & K 13 of 1964) 
as amended by Amending Act 8 of 1967, ss. 8(2) & 10--0rder of deten-
tion without reference to Advisory Board-Crder revoked at the end of 
6 months c-nd fresh order passed with new grourtds-If mala fidr--Inde-
finiteness due to withholding of facts under s. 8(2)-/f order vague. 
On March 16, 1968, the petitioner was anested and orderOd to be 
detained under.•. 3(1)(a)(i) of the Jammu and Kashmir Preventive 
Detention Act, 1964. 
On September 16,, 1968, the order was revoked 
and another order was served on him. 
On September 24, 1968 the peti· 
tioner was served with the jlTounds for the fresh order of detention. His 
case was reforred to the Advisory Board on October 26, 1968 and the 
Board recommended his detention. Under s. 10 of the Act, as amended 
by s. 13A, of the Amcndfu~ ·Act 8 of 1967, the Government is required 
to refer a case to the Advisory Board within 60 days from the date of 
detention. 
In a petition for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus, it was contend· 
cd that : (! ) Since the case of the petitioner was not referred to the 
Advisory Board within 60 days of the date of detention (March 16, 1968) 
the detention was invalid; (2) The authorities acted ma/a fide 
in making 
the detention order; ( 3) The grounds in suppolrt of the order were vague 
and indefinite; and ( 4) Ti..at his being subjected to solitary conftnement 
while in detention was illegal. 
HELD : ( 1) There was no reason for not accepting the statement of 
the State that it was not intended, when the detention order of March 16, 
1968 was passed that theo petitioner was to be 'kept in detention for a 
period longer than 6 months. Therefore, his case fell within the terms 
of s. 13A(I) which provides that 'notwithstanding anything contained in 
this A~', a person may be detained for a period not longer than 6 months 
without obtaining the opinion of the Advisory Board. 
In the present 
case, the petitioner was detained under the first order only for .a period 
of 6 months when that order was revoked by the second order of deten· 
ti~n. [579. CJ 
( 2) The grounds for the Jwo orders are not identical. 
Wben 
the 
first order was passed the petitioner was not intended to be detained for 
a period exceeding 6 months. Thereafter, in consequence of forther in· 
formation that the petitioner was violent by nature and was a perpetual 
threat to the maintenance of public order, the Government had to issue 
a fresh order.· Therefore, it could not be said that the Government acted 
ma/a fide in making either the original or the fresh order. [579 
G-H; 
580 A-BJ 
· (3) The order clearly stated faclts relevant to the grounds. of deten· 
tion except those which Govelrnment considered to be against public in· 
terest to disclose. Under s. 8(2) it is open to the Government to with· 
hold such facts. 
Because of the withholding of such facts the 1gronnd,, 
in the order of detention could not be said to be vague or indefinite. 
[580 C-E] 
. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SAMPAT PRAKASH v. J & K STATE (Shah, J.) 
575 
( 4) Notwithstanding the broad principles of the rule of law, equality 
and liberty of the individual enshrined in the Constitution, it tolerates on 
account of the peculiar conditions prevailing, legislation in relation to 
preventive detention, which is a negation of the rule of law, equality and 
liberty. But it is implicit in the Constitutional scheme that the power to 
detain is not a power to publish and .the restrkti_ons plac.ed must. consi~­
tently with the effectjveness of detention, be m101mal. Smee a detenu is 
not a convict he cannot be subjected to solitary confinement. [580 E-G] 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition· No. 361 of 1968. 
Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India for writ iin 
the nature of habeas corpus. 
M. K. Ramamurthi, Shyamala Pappu and Vineet Kumar, for 
the petitioner. 
R. Gopalakrishnan and R. N. Sachthey, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Shah, J, 
On March 16, 1968 the petitioner was arrested 
and ordered to be detained u?Jer s. 3 (1 )(a)( i) of the J amrnu 
and Kashmir Preventive Detention Act 13 of 1964. On March 
26, 1968, he was served witl:i the grounds of detention. 
On 
May 3, 1968, the petitioner moved a petition for a writ of habeas 
corpus in this Court

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