SHAFIQ AHMAD versus DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MEERUT & ORS.

Citation: [1989] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 56 · Decided: 06-09-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SABYASACHI MUKHERJI · Disposal: Case Allowed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SHAFIQ AHMAD 
v. 
DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MEERUT & ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 6, 1989 
B 
[SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND B.C. RAY, JJ.] 
National Security Act 1980-Section 3(2) Detention Order-
Validity of-Challenged. Delay occurred in executing the order of 
detention-Whether vitiates the detention. 
C 
In pursuance of an order of detention dated 15.4.1988, passed by 
the District Magistrate, Meerut, the Petitioner, a bachelor and having 
no property, was arrested on 2nd October 1988 and detained under 
Section 3(2) of the National Security Act. The petitioner was supplied 
with the grounds of detention enumerating therein the acts committed 
by him on 2nd, 3rd and 4th April 1988 and on 9.4.88 and the provoca-
D live speeches made by him on the occasion of Shabberat a Muslim 
festival to the effect that Hindus had deliberately ''sent their cow on the 
road" and the "people are silent" alld about teaching ''them" a lessOn 
and administration's failure to fix a long speaker in the mosque. These 
acts and the speeches made by the petitioner, were, in the opinion of the 
detaining authority, prejudidal to the maintenance of public order. 
E The representation made by the petitioner ag~inst the order of deten-
tion was rejected and the order of his detention was confirmed. 
. 
Thereupon, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition under Arti-
cle 32 of the Constitution challenging his detention. The contentions of 
the petitioner are that (i) that there was inordinate delay in arresting 
F 
the petitioner which indicated that the order of detention was not based 
on a bona fide and genuine belief that the action and conduct of the 
petitioner were such that the same were prejudicial to the maintenance of 
,public order and the so-called "grounds" were merely make-belief and 
not genuine grounds; (ii) that the grounds were not germane to the 
maintenance of "public order" and (iii) that the grounds were vague 
G and unintelligible. 
Allowing the Writ Petition, this Court, 
HELD: Sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Act authorises the 
Central Govemment or the State Government, if satisfied with respect 
H to any person that with a view to preventing him from acting in any 
56 
J 
SHAFIQ AHMED v. DISTI. MAGISTRATE MEERUT 
57 
manner prejudicial to the security of the state, it is found necessary, 
then the person can be detained. Hence there must be conduct relevant 
to the formation of the satisfaction having reasonable nexus with the 
actions of the petitioner which are prejudicial to the maintenance of 
public order. Existence of material relevant to the formation of satisfac-
tion and having rational nexus to the formation of the satisfaction that 
because of certain conduct ''it is necessary'' to .!Dake an order ''detain-
ing" such person, are subjectto judicial review. [60H; 61A-BJ, 
Delay, unexplained and not justified, by the circumstances and 
the exigencies of the situation, is indicative of the fact that the 
authorities concerned were not and could not have been satisfied that 
"preventive custody" of the concerned person was necessary to prevent 
him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public 
order. Whether there has been unreasonable delay, depends upon the 
facts and circumstances of a particular situation. !61c-i>i 
Satisfaction of the authorities based on conduct must precede 
action for prevention. Satisfaction entails belief. Satisfaction and belief 
are subjective. Actions based on subjective satisfaction are· objective 
indication of the existence of the Si!bJective satisfaction. Action based on 
satisfaction should be with speed commensurate with the situation. [61E-F) 
If in a situation the person concerned is not available or cannot be 
served then the mere fact that the action under section 7 of the Act has 
not been taken, would not be a ground to say that the detention order 
was bad. Failure to take action, even if there was no scope for action 
under section 7 of the Act would not be decisive or determinative of the 
question whether there was undue delay in .serving the Order of 
detention. [62A-B] 
The Petitioner has no property, so no property could be attached 
and as the Government's case is that he was not available for arrest, no 
order under sec. 7 could have been pQssibly made. This, however, does 
not salvage the situation. The fact is that from 15th April 1988 to 12th 
May 1988, no attempt had been made to contact the Petitioner. 
No 
explanation 
has 
been given for this. 
Th

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